The eight chapters of Maimonides on ethics (Shemonah perakim);

THE UNIVERSITY

OF ILLINOIS

LIBRARY

• * ^

>-*-v

Return this book on or before the
Latest Date stamped below. A
charge is made on all overdue
books.

U. of I. Library

APR 13 '36

MAR. -9 '37

JAN -.j

DEC -3
fiPfl 1 7 j-

,lilN -;{
DEC -4 19

BPR 10

MflY -4 !J
MBY 1«»

9

939

tiv, 1.7

5»(5

fllL J y

135^ ;CT /
OCT'

5*

•!«

969

%25

01

9324-S

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS OF MAIMONIDES
ON ETHICS

SHEMONAH PEEAKIM

COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY PRESS

SALES AGENTS

NEW YORK:

LEMCKE & BUECHNER
30-32 WEST BTTH STREET

LONDON :

HENRY FROWDE
AMEN CORNER, E.G.

TORONTO :

HENRY FROWDE

25 RICHMOND ST., W.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ORIENTAL STUDIES
VOL. VII.

THE

EIGHT CHAPTERS OF MAIMONIDES
ON ETHICS

(SHEMONAH PERAKIM)
A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL TREATISE

EDITED, ANNOTATED, AND TRANSLATED
WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY

JOSEPH I. GORFINKLE, PH.D.

RABBI OF SINAI TEMPLE, MT. VERNON, N.Y.

Neto

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1912

All rights reserved

\fel

NOTE

THE Hebrew translation of the Shemonah Perakim of Mai-
monides, despite its importance in the history of Jewish ethics
during the Middle Ages, has never been presented in a critical
edition. This Dr. Gorfinkle has done in the present volume
with acumen and with much diligence. To this purpose, he
has examined carefully a number of manuscripts and printed
editions. He has also compared the Arabic original through-
out, and has given in the notes his reasons for accepting or
rejecting certain readings. In order that the work may be
accessible to readers who do not understand Hebrew, an English
translation has been added.

RICHARD GOTTHEIL.
MAT, 1912.

:38873

TO
THE SACRED MEMORY

OF
MY FATHER

PREFACE

IT was while in attendance at the Hebrew Union College, and
under the able tuition of my friend and teacher, Dr. Henry
Malter, now of Dropsie College, that I became acquainted with
the masterpieces of Jewish philosophy, and among them the
Shemonah Perakim of Maimonides. Remembering the corrupt
condition of the text of the ordinary editions of the Perakim,
and of that in the Mishnah and the Talmud containing Maimo-
nides' Commentary on the Mishnah, and recollecting the fre-
quency with which it was necessary to have recourse to the
Arabic original in order to render the text intelligible, when
casting about for a subject for a dissertation, I thought I could
do no better than endeavor to reconstruct the Hebrew text as
it came from the pen of of the translator, Samuel ibn Tibbon.

In this rather ambitious attempt, I was guided throughout
by Dr. Richard Gottheil, to whom my sincere thanks are due
for his constant interest and for his invaluable suggestions.
I wish especially to thank Dr. Malter for his assistance in the
Arabic and for his many excellent suggestions. I also take this
opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Dr. Alexander Marx
for his uniform kindness in allowing me to use manuscripts
and books of the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary.
To Mr. Simeon Leventall, I am also grateful for his assistance
in correcting the proofs of the translation and notes.

There has been a delay of two years in the publishing of this
book owing to the fact that originally it was not intended to
include a translation of the Perakim and notes, and because a
greater part of the book had to be set up in Europe.

ix

x PREFACE

It is with a feeling of trepidation that I send into the world
this, my first work, fully realizing its many shortcomings. I
can only hope that the kind reader will be so engrossed in these
interesting Chapters of the master, Maimonides, and will find
their teachings so captivating, that he will overlook the failings
of the novice who presents them to him.

G.

WlNTHROP, MA88.,

AUGUST, 1912.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION PAGK

I. THE OBJECT OF MAIMONIDES' WRITINGS. THE COMMENTARY

ON THE MlSHNAH. THE SHEMONAH PERAKIM . . 1

II. A. MAIMONIDES' ETHICAL WRITINGS — DEFINITION OP ETHICS 7

B. NAME, DATE, DESCRIPTION, AND CONTENTS OF THE SHEMO-

NAH PERAKIM . . . , . . . . . 9

C. SAMUEL IBN TIBBON AS A TRANSLATOR — His TRANSLA-

TION OF THE SHEMONAH PERAKIM 19

D. DESCRIPTION OF COLLATED MATERIAL — GENERAL RE-

MARKS ON THE TEXT 24

E. MANUSCRIPTS — EDITIONS — TRANSLATIONS — COMMENTA-

RIES 27

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS — TRANSLATION

FOREWORD 34

CHAPTER I — Concerning the Human Soul and its Faculties . 37
CHAPTER IT — Concerning the Transgressions of the Faculties
of the Soul, and the Designation of those Faculties which
are the Seat of the Virtues and Vices . . . . .47
CHAPTER III — Concerning the Diseases of the Soul ... 51
CHAPTER IV — Concerning the Cure of the Diseases of the Soul 54
CHAPTER V — Concerning the Application of Man's Psychic Fac-
ulties towards the Attainment of a Single Goal ... 69
CHAPTER VI — Concerning the Difference between the Saintly
or Temperamentally Ethical Man and him who Subdues

his Passions and has Self-restraint 75

CHAPTER VII — Concerning the Barrier between God and Man

and its Signification 79

CHAPTER VIII — Concerning the Natural Disposition of Man . 85

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES 103

INDEX OF QUOTATIONS FROM THE TALMUD 104

CRITICAL TEXT AND NOTES OF THE SHEMONAII PERAKIM . . 5-55

xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGNS

Abot Pirke A lot, ed. Strack, Berlin, 1888.

Br British Museum Ms. See p. 24.

Ma Mahzor. See p. 24.

Mi First edition of Mishnah. See p. 25.

So Soncino edition of Abot. See p. 25.

M Maimonides.

Eth. NIC. . . . Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, ed. Lewes.

I.T Ibn Tibbon.

Poc Pococke's Porta Mosis, Arabic or Latin.

Ro Rosin's Ethik des Maimonides, 1876.

Wo Wolff, Musa Maimuni's Adit Capitel, 1903.

Ar Arabic text as presented in Wolff or Pococke.

Catal. Bodl. . . . Steinschneider's Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in

Bibliotheca Bodleiana.

Jew. Lit Steinschneider's Jewish Literature.

HUb Steinschneider's Hebraische Uebersetzungen.

Arab. Lit Steinschneider's Die Arab. Literatur der Juden.

AGPh Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophic (Stein).

AZDJ. .... Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums.

JE The Jewish Encyclopaedia.

JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review.

Moses ben Maimon, I. Memorial Volume, Moses ben Maimon, Sein Leben, Seine

Werke und Sein Einftuss, Volume I, Leipzig, 1908.

ZPTiKr Zeitschrift fur Philosophic und philosophisch? Kritik.

ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gessellschaft.

+ Denotes that the word or words following it are found

only in sources designated. IT + denotes that what

follows is added by Ibn Tibbon to the original.
> Indicates that the word or words following are not

found in the text designated.

Words in small type in the Hebrew text, and those enclosed in brackets in
the English, are glosses by Ibn Tibbon.

xii

THE OBJECT OF MAIMONIDES' WORKS. THE COMMENTARY
ON THE MISHNAH. THE SHEMONAH PER A KIM

DURING the lifetime of Maimonides, there were many who
bitterly assailed him, declaring that his Talmudical knowledge
was faulty, that his writings were un-Jewish, that he sought to
introduce strange elements into Judaism, and that he desired
his works to supersede the Talmud.1 Some of Maimonides'
opponents were animated by a spirit of true criticism, but other
attacks made upon him were partly due to personal feelings of
envy.2 The opposition continued for a while after Maimonides'
death, but it was not long before the true character of this mas-
ter's works became universally recognized. The feeling, minus
the personal element, that Maimonides wished to have his
works take the place of the Talmud, has, however, persisted
to this day. Thus, we find Luzzatto3 stating that Maimonides
wrote his Mishneh Torah in order to do away with the study
of the Babylonian Talmud. Beer, supporting the same opinion,
maintains that Maimonides saw the disadvantages of the study
of the Talmud, was aware of the uselessness of some of its
parts, and considered its extended study a waste of time.4 As
proof of this he quotes from the introduction to the Mishneh

1 Moses Maimonides (in Arabic, Ibu 'Imrdn Musa ibn Maimun ibn 'Obaid
Allah} was born at Cordova, March 30, 1135 ; in 1165 he accompanied his
father to Africa and then to Palestine ; in 1166 he repaired to Egypt, and
settled in Fustat, near Cairo ; he died Dec. 13, 1204. On the pronunciation
of jia'n, see Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften (1876), III, Moses ben Maimon,
p. 70, note 1 ; Gratz, VI8, p. 262, n. 1 ; Catal. Sodl., 1861 ff. ; Arab. Lit., 199 ff.
On his life and works, see Catal. Sodl., 1861 ff. ; Gratz, VI3, pp. 261-326 ; also
Yellin and Abrahams, Maimonides (Philadelphia, 1903) ; I. Broyde", </!?, IX, art.,
Moses ben Maimon ; etc. 2 On the opposition to Maimonides' works, see Jew.
Lit., pp. 85-92. 3 In Kerem Hemed, III, p. 67. * Leben und Wirken des
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Prague, 1834), pp. 6, 15, 16.

B 1

2 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Torali the famous sentence, " I have named this work Mishneh
Torah for the reason that if any one has read the Torah and
then this work, he would know the Biblical and oral law with-
out having to read any other book." Geiger 1 maintains that
Maimonides' object was merely to shorten the study of the
Talmud.

There are those, however, who take exception to this view.
Rosin 2 says, " From the very beginning the Talmud alone was
the object of his study." Worldly knowledge and philosophy
were merely used by Maimonides as instruments for explaining
and glorifying the divine teaching. He considered the rabbis
to be second only in rank and greatness to the prophets, and
held their writings in equally high esteem. On the face of it,
the quotation cited from the Mishneh Torah would seem to
prove the assertion made above, but this passage may be in-
terpreted to prove exactly the opposite ; that far from being
his object to discourage the study of the Talmud, he wished
to spread its knowledge among those who for any reason were
unable to have access to it, or who could not devote sufficient
time to master it. "It is a gross injustice often done to Mai-
monides," says I. Friedlaender, " to accuse him of having the
intention to supersede the Talmud entirely. . . . He consid-
ered the Talmud as a most worthy object of study, but only
for scholars. The people, however, are not scholars and can-
not devote the whole of life to learning. For the mass of
people alone he intended to supersede the Talmud by a com-
prehensive extract from it." Ziemlich, finally, asserts that
Maimonides did not desire to put an end to the study of the
Talmud, but rather to cast it into scientific form.3

Although this decided difference of opinion as to Maimonides'
attitude towards the Talmud still exists, all, however, agree

1 Moses ben Maimon, p. 67 ; p. 83, n. 33. 2 Ethik, p. 30, "Von Hause
aus sei der Talmud allein Gegenstand seines Studiums gewesen." 8 I. Fried-
laender, Moses Maimonides, in New Era Illustrated Magazine, January, 1905,
Reprint (New York, 1905), pp. 34-35 ; Bernard Ziemlich, Plan und Anlage des
Mischne Torah, in Moses ben Maimon, I, p. 259 ; see also M. Friedlander, Guide,
In trod., pp. xix, xxi.

INTRODUCTION 3

that his main object was to harmonize Jewish traditional belief
with the current Aristotelian philosophy.1 For this work
Maimonides was admirably equipped ; his ability as a systema-
tizer was most remarkable, and not only had he a profound
knowledge of Jewish law and lore, but was so deep a student
of philosophy and the sciences that his works have since
exercised considerable influence even outside the domains of
Judaism.2 His chapters, for instance, in the Moreh on the
Mutakallimun have become the main source for the history and
knowledge of the Kaldm.3

The most important of his works which have had a profound
influence upon Judaism are his Commentary on the MisTinah
(••Wan tZnTS), the Mishneh Torah (mm JTOfc) or Yad ha-
HazaTcah (HpTHn T), and the G-uide for the Perplexed

Ttie Commentary on the Mishnah? Maimonides' first work of
importance, written in Arabic,5 was begun at the age of twenty -

1 Munk, Guide, Vol. I, Preface, p. 1 ; Beer, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, pp. 4
and 12; Arab. Lit., pp. 203-204; Rosin, Ethik, p. 30; Gratz, VI8, pp. 275,
307 ; Wolff, Acht Capitel, Introd., p. ix ; M. Friedlander, Guide, Introd., p. xxiv.
2 Joel, Verhaltniss Alb. d. Gr. zu Moses Maimonides (Breslau, 1863) ; Etwas
iiber den Einfluss der jiidischen Philosophic auf die christliche Scholastik
(FrankeVs Monatsschr., IX, pp. 205-217) ; Jaraczewski, Die Ethik des M., etc.,
in ZPhKr., XLVI,pp. 5-24 ; Guttmann, Das Verhaltniss des Thomas v. Aquino
zur jud. Literatur (Gottingen, 1891) ; Die Scholastik des 13 Jahrh. in ihren
Beziehungen zur jud. Litteratur (Breslau, 1902) ; D. Kaufmann, Der Fiihrer
Maimunfs in der Weltlitteratur, AGPh., XI, p. 335 ff. ; Richter, Geschichte der
christlichen Philosophie, Vol. I, p. 610 ff. ; Ueberweg, Hist, of Phil. (1885),
Vol. I, p. 428 ; Weber, Hist, of Phil. (1895), p. 210, n. 2 ; Jacob Guttmann, Der
Einfluss der maimonidischen Philosophie auf das christliche Abendland, in Moses
ben Maimon, I, pp. 135-230 ; Philip Bloch, Charakteristik und Inhaltsangabe
des Moreh Nebuchim, ib., p. 41, n. 1. 8 Munk, Melanges, p. 323; HUb.,
p. 415 ; M. Guttmann, Das religionsphil. System der Mutakallimun nach
d. Berichte Maimon (Leipzig, 1885) ; D. Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 339-340.
4 The Arabic title is }toD?N asro (iiNon IBD, Book of Illumination), which,
however, as Steinschneider (Arab. Lit., p. 200) and Geiger (Moses ben Maimon,
p. 82, n. 31) maintain, hardly originated with Maimonides. 5 M. wrote all of
his works, with the exception of the Mishneh Torah and a number of letters,
in Arabic, but with Hebrew characters, as Arabic was the language used by
the Jews living under Islam. On his objection to having the Moreh copied in
other than Hebrew characters, see Munk, Notice sur Joseph ben Jehouda (Paris,

4 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

three (1158), in Spain, and was completed at the age of thirty-
three l (1168), after he had taken up his residence in Egypt.
In this Talinudic work of his early manhood, Maimonides
scarcely had a predecessor.2 Though one of his earliest works,
and in spite of the difficulties in writing it during years of
wandering and seeking a secure home, with no books accessible,
the Commentary is a marvel of lucidity, masterful knowledge,
and comprehensiveness. Gratz attributes its existence to the
author's striving for "clearness, method, and symmetry."2*
The fact that it is so often referred to in his later writings
testifies that at a very early date Maimonides had outlined
for himself a thorough philosophical system and a literary
scheme from which he subsequently deviated only slightly.3
Most of the theories and principles established in the Com-
mentary were retained in the Mishneh Torah.*

1842), p. 27, n. 1. On the Arabic language of Maimonides and his style, see
I. Friedlaender, Sprachgebrauch des Maimonides (Frankfurt a. M., 1902), Intro-
duction ; and by the same author, in Moses ben Maimon, I, the articles, Die ara-
bische Sprache des Maimonides, pp. 421-428, and Der Stil des Maimonides, pp.
429-438 ; also his short account in Selections from the Arabic Writings of
Maimonides (Semitic Study Series^ No. XII, edited by Gottheil and Jastrow,
Leiden, 1909), In trod., pp. xiv-xxiii.

1 See infra, p. 10, n. 1. 2 Geiger, Moses ben Maimon, p. 59 ; Harkavy, in
Hebrew ed. of Gratz, IV, Appendix, p. 52. 2a Gratz, VI3, pp. 266 and 274.
8 In the Moreh, which appeared at least twenty-five years after the Com. on the
Mishnah, there are twelve or more references to the latter, four of which are to
the Perakim. See Moreh, I, 39 ; III, 35 (twice), 48. Scheyer, in Das psycho lo-
gteche System des Maimonides (Frankfurt a. M., 1845), which he designated
as an introduction to the Moreh, draws largely from the Perakim, and constantly
refers to them in the notes. See especially Chaps. I, II, and IV. Munk, in the
notes in his Guide, refers a number of times to the Mish. Com., many of these
being to the Perakim. In Vol. I, p. 210, n. 1, he quotes at length from Pera-
l-im I on the rational faculty, and on p. 232, n. 1, from Perakim VIII on the at-
tributes of God. Other references are found in Vol. I, p. 125, n. 2, to Perakim
II (the classification of the virtues) ; p. 286, n. 3, to Perakim VIII (miracles) ;
p. 355, n. 1, to Perakim I (the faculties) ; p. 400, n. 2, to Perakim I (the theory
of imagination of the Mutakallimun) ; etc. 4 Ziemlich, Plan und Anlage des
Mischne Thora, in Moses ben Maimon, I, p. 305, "Die ira M. K. festgestellten
Resultate hat er zum grossen Teile in den M. T. aufgenommen. " See also
authorities cited by Ziemlich. On the contradictions of the Mishnah Com-
mentary and the Mishneh Torah, see Derenbourg, in Zunz's Jubelschrift (Berlin,
1884), Die Uebersetsungen des Mischnah Commentars des Maimonides.

INTRODUCTION 5

The greater part of the Commentary was not translated into
Hebrew until after his death. The general introduction to this
work and parts of the order Zeraim were translated by Jehudah
al-Harizi (1194) ; Moed by Joseph ibn al-Fawwal ; NasTiim by
Jakob ibn Abbas ; Nezikin by Salomon b. Josef ibn Ya'kub ;
KodosJiim by Nathanel ibn Almoli (or Almali) ; and Tohorot
by an anonymous translator.1 The commentary on Sanhedrin,
Chapter X, was translated probably by Al-Harizi, and also by
Samuel ibn Tibbon.

In commenting on the tractate Abot, Maimonides had abun-
dant opportunity to make use of his knowledge of Greek
philosophy and particularly of Aristotelian ethics. To this
tractate he prefixed an introduction of eight chapters, out-
lining in a general way a system of ethics based mainly on
Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics? which Maimonides harmonized
with rabbinical teachings. This introduction constitutes the
most remarkable instance in medieval ethical literature of the
harmonious welding of Jewish religious belief and tradition
with Greek philosophy.

For the rendering into Hebrew of the Commentary on Abot
and its introduction commonly called Dp^lS !"I31DE7 (The Eight

1 For a detailed account of the translators and translations of the Com-
mentary on the Mishnah, see HUb., pp. 923-926; Arab. Lit., pp. 201-202.
2 To M., Aristotle was the "chief of philosophers." Cf. Munk, Guide, I,
Chap. V, p. 46, and n. 1. See also Moreh, II, 17, 19, 24. He considered him to
be almost on a plane with the prophets. See M.'s Letter to Ibn Tibbon, Kobez
II. M. refers to the Nichomachean Ethics in Moreh, II, 36, and in III, 49
(twice). On his dependence upon Eth. Nic., see Rosin, Ethik, p. 6, et al. M.,
however, does not slavishly follow Aristotle, and speaks disparagingly of those
"who believe that they are philosophers," but who consider "it wrong to differ
from Aristotle, or to think that he was ignorant or mistaken in anything"
(Moreh, II, 15). In regard to Aristotle's theory of creation, he speaks of the
absurdities implied in it (t'ft., II, 18, end). See A. Wolf in Aspects of the Hebrew
Genius, London, 1910, pp. 141-142. On M. 's departure in the Perakim from
the Aristotelian system, see Jaraczewski, ZPliKr., XLVI, pp. 12-13, 14-15,
and 16. On M.'s dependence upon Aristotle, see M. Joel, Die Eeligions-philos-
ophie des Mose ben Maimon (Breslau, 1859) ; Scheyer, Das psychol. System
des Maimonides ; Rosin, Ethik ; Wolff, Acht Capitel ; Yellin and Abrahams,
Maimonides ; Cohen, Charakteristik der Ethik des Maimunis, in Moses ben Mai-
mon, I, all en passim ; and Ludwig Stein in JE, II, pp. 47, 48-49.

6 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Chapters), Samuel ibn Tibbon, who was at work on the trans-
lation of the Moreh, was eminently fitted. The Shemonah
Perakim have always been widely read among the Jews and
students of the philosophy of Maimonides on account of their
simplicity of style and subject matter, and no less on account
of their accessibility, being found in all editions of the Mishnah
and Talmud 1 that contain Maimonides' commentary, in a num-
ber of Mahzorim? especially of the Roman and Greek ritual,
and also in various separate editions.3 Their popularity is
evidenced by the fact that they have been translated into Latin,
French, Dutch, English, and many times into German.4

An examination, however, of the Hebrew text of the Perakim
in the editions of the Mishnah and the Talmud, in the Mahzorim,
and the many separate publications, at once shows that no two
agree, and that each is in many instances in a corrupt state. A
like examination of the manuscript sources bears the same result.
Again, if any individual text, even that of the best manuscript,
be placed beside the original Arabic in Pococke's Porta Mosis 5
or Wolff's Acht Capitel, one would find many divergences. It
may be safely stated that there is not in existence to-day, in any
form, a text of the Shemonah Perakim which in its entirety is a
faithful reproduction of the version of Ibn Tibbon. By a select-
ive process based on a collation of the best texts, with the Arabic
as a constant guide, it is possible, however, to reconstruct the
Shemonah Perakim, so that almost every corrupt reading can be
rectified. The purpose of this work is to restore and elucidate
linguistically the text of Ibn Tibbon as far as possible, and by
a translation make it accessible to readers of English.

As this is mainly a textual work, its aim is not to treat with
any degree of detail Maimonides' ethics, its sources, Jewish or
Greek, and its place in Jewish philosophy, all of which has
been admirably done by Rosin in his Eihik. But, in order to
obtain a more complete knowledge of the Perakim and the
theories laid down therein, the editor deems it well to mention
and describe Maimonides' other ethical writings, the place of

1 See pp. 25 and 31. 2 See pp. 24-25, 29-30, and 31. 3 See pp. 31 and 32.
4 See pp. 32 and 33. 6 See p. 27.

INTRODUCTION 7

ethics in his philosophical system, and what ethics meant to
him. The name and the date of the original composition of
the Perakim, as well as that of its translation by Ibn Tibbon,
will be discussed. The relation of the Perakim to Maimoni-
des' other works will be taken up, followed by a characteriza-
tion and summary of their contents. A brief account of the
style and character of Ibn Tibbon's translations in general,
and as portrayed in the Perakim, will also be given. There is
also included a list of manuscripts, editions, commentaries, and
translations.

II

A. MAIMONIDES' ETHICAL WRITINGS — DEFINITION OF

ETHICS

THE works in which Maimonides presents his ethical teach-
ings are as follows : —

I. Commentary on the Mishnah1 (!"!JtP£n ttJlTD), in many
places, but especially in :

a. G-eneral Introduction to the Mishnah Commentary

(rowan PITS nrrns)2;

b. Introduction to Sanhedrin, Chapter X (p?!! pIS) 8 ;

c. Introduction to Abot (HOtf DITTlS or D^pIS WOP)* ;

d. Commentary on Abot.b

II. Book of Commandments (JTliflBn *"l£D),6 in various places.

1 See Catal. Bodl., 1853; Arab. Lit., p. 200 ff., and Gratz, VIs, p. 273 ff.
2 Generally, but incorrectly, named D'jrv -noS nD^n, as in Pococke, Porta Mosis,
which contains the Arabic text with Latin translation. 3 Arabic with Latin
translation in Porta Mosis. Arabic with Hebrew translation, J. Holzer, Zur
Geschichte der Dogmenlehre in der jiid. Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters.
Mose MaimunVs Einleitung zu Chelek (Berlin, 1901) ; English translation by
J. Abelson, JQB, vol. XXIX, p. 28 ff. The Arabic text with notes has been
recently edited by I. Friedlaender in Selections from the Arabic Writings of
Maimonides, pp. 1-39. * See Catal. Bodl., 1890-91. 5 Arab. Lit., p. 273,
n. 1. Arabic text by Baneth, Berlin, 1905 ; Ger. translation in Rawicz,
Commentar des M. zu den Spriichen der Voter (1910). 6 Written by M. to
serve as an introduction to the Mishneh Torah ; it contains the enumeration
and classification of the 613 precepts of the Law. See Gratz, VI3, p. 291. For
a part of the Arabic text with the Hebrew translation of Shelomoh ben Joseph
ibn Ayyub, and German translation with notes, see M. Peritz, Das Such der

8 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

III. MISHNEH TORAHI (1170-1180) (mm rUtttt), scattered

references, but especially in :

Book of Knowledge (91ttn ISO) in the Treatise on Beliefs
(DISH nOWT), and in the Treatise on Repentance (rVDTI

rarefy).*

IV. MOREH NEBUKIM (D'O'QJ mitt),3 in many places, but

especially Part III, Chapters 51-54.
V. Scattered references in his minor works, as :

a. Terminology of Logic* (|V3nn

b. Treatise on the Unity of God5

c. Various Responsa (JTOltPri) ; Letters (filliK) ; and

Medical Aphorisms QWfc p*!S).6

In his Terminology of Logic"' (pMHn rYDtt), Maimonides divides
philosophy into two divisions : theoretical (rP3V2?n fcTSlDlTBH),
and practical philosophy (ttTCOn fcTSlDlTSn).8 The latter
he also terms " human philosophy" (fW13K fcfBIDl'TS), or "polit-
ical science " (JTS'Httn PlttDnn). Under theoretical philosophy
he groups mathematics, physics, and metaphysics. Under prac-
tical philosophy are found ethics (11PS3 DTK."! n3!"13!"i), house-
hold economy (TVOn romi), the science of government
rU'Httn), and politics in its broadest sense (1171*1311

Gesetze, Theil I (Breslau, 1881) ; the Arabic text was published by Moi'se Bloch,
Paris, 1888. See HUb., p. 926 ; Jew. Lit., p. 71 ; and in Moses ben Maimon, I,
articles by Moritz Peritz, Das Buch der Gesetze, nach seiner Anlage und seinem
Inhalte untersucht, and by Ferdinand Rosenthal, Die Kritik des Maimonidischen
" Suches der Gesetze " durch Nachmanides.

1 Catal. Bodl., 1869 ff. ; Gratz, VI3, p. 285 ff. ; Ziemlich, Plan und Anlage des
Mischne Thora, in Moses ben Maimon, I, pp. 248-318. 2 76., pp. 273, 278,
281-283. 3 For literature, description, and contents of the Moreh, see HUb.,
pp. 414-434 ; Gratz, VI3, p. 306 ff. ; M. Friedlander, Guide, Introd. ; Bloch, Cha~
rakteristik und Inhaltsangabe des Moreh Nebuchim, in Moses ben Maimon, I,
pp. 1-52. * HUb., pp. 434-436. Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon in many
editions. 8 HUb., pp. 436-437. 6 Consists of Arabic excerpts from the
writings of Galen and other physicians. Hebrew by Natan ha-Meati, edited in
Lemberg, 1800, 1834-35, and in Wilna, 1888. See Jew. Lit., p. 195 ; HUb., pp.
765-767 ; Arab. Lit., pp. 214-215 ; Kosin, Ethik, p. 32, n. 6 ; Pagel, Maimuni als
medizinischer Schriftsteller, in Moses ben Maimon, I, pp. 232-238. 7 Chapter
XIV. 8 In the introduction to Sanhedrin, Chap. X (Perek Helek), M. speaks
of N^iDi^on JD >B>j?Dn

INTRODUCTION 9

Ethics, or the science of self-guidance, consists, on the one
hand, in acquiring for one's self noble soul-qualities or charac-
teristics (rVnMJPI mitt!!), and, on the other hand, of avoiding
evil qualities (nimnsn nnttlT). These qualities, whether good
or bad, are called states or conditions (11131311), and when acquired
each is known as a property (j^p). Noble qualities are called
virtues (lYnttn JTPVE), while the vices are termed nVHTlB
nnBn. The virtues cause good deeds (HDlian nfeWT), the
vices, bad ones (5"1H rvnYSSi"!). Ethics is the science of virtues
or of good deeds.1

B. NAME, DATE, DESCRIPTION, AND CONTENTS OF THE
SHEMONAH PERAKIM

The Shemonah Perakim, in Maimonides' system, come, accord-
ingly, under the head of ethics (ItPSJ D"TNn nnjrT), which in
turn is a branch of practical philosophy (rnPSOH JTaiDlTBIT).
They are divided into eight chapters, from which fact the name
is derived. This division undoubtedly goes back to Maimoni-
des himself, who, in his short introduction to the Perakim, says
"and they are eight chapters."2 The Arabic equivalent is
Thamaniat Fuml, which Wolff uses as a title for his edition of
the Arabic text. It seems, however, that neither of these titles
originated with Maimonides, for, in Moreh, III. 35, in referring
to the Perakim, he calls them the Preface to Abot? Whether
Ibn Tibbon used the title Shemonah Perakim, it is difficult to
ascertain.4 The simplicity of the title has fortunately been the
cause of avoiding confusion as to its exact meaning, which is
not the case with the title Moreh Nelukimf

1 Rosin, Ethik, p. 37, " Die Ethik ist also nach M. die Lehre von den Tugen-
den und den guten Handlungen." 2 a^pio rmco am. See Hebrew text, p. 7.
8 ni3t< i-rvna : Ar. man -n$. See p. 3, n. 4, on the Arabic title of the Com. on
the Mishneh (JJOD), for which M. is probably also not responsible. 4 In his
Preface to the translation of the Commentary on Abot, I. T. refers to them as
31 3-vn onpn -\tt>n O'piam. See p. 22, n. 1. 5 On the appropriateness of mio
0'3iaj as a translation of the Arabic title Dalalat al Hd'irln (p-VNnSt* riSsS-i),
see HUb., p. 418. Maimonides himself was of the opinion that D'OISM n*mn
would be preferable. See also Kaufmann, Attrib., p. 363, and n. 1 ; and espe-
cially Munk, Guide, Note sur le Titre de cet Ouvrage, at beginning of Vol. I ;
and II, pp. 379-380.

10 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

The date of composition of the Perakim cannot be accurately
determined. All that can be said is that it was written some-
time between 1158 and 1165, along with the rest of the com-
mentary on the Mishnah, which was made public in 1168. l
As to the translation, the only source of information regarding
its date is the manuscript Parma R. 4386, which in a note
states that the Commentary on Abot was translated by Samuel
ibn Tibbon in Tebet 963, which is the year 1202.2

Although written originally as an introduction to the com-
mentary on the PirTce Abot, for the purpose of explaining in
advance problems that Maimonides brings up in the course of
his commentary, the Perakim form in themselves a complete
system of psychology 3 and ethics,4 so much so that Rosin, in
writing on this phase of Maimonides' activity, uses them as a
basis of his discussion in the first half of his Eihik, in which
he takes up Maimonides' general ethics. They do not, however,
form an exhaustive treatment of this subject, as Maimonides

1 According to a postscript to the Commentary on the Mishnah written by
Maimonides, he began to work on it at the age of twenty-three (1158), and
finished it at the age of thirty, in the year 1479 of the Seleucidian era, which
is the year 1168, when, however, Maimonides was thirty-three years of age and
not thirty. Maimonides could not have made a mistake in his own age.
Geiger explains the difficulty by stating that Maimonides must have written
the postscript while he was in the Maghreb in 1165, when the Commentary was
practically finished. The words onxna and nna:?1? 71 'o rw torn? were, how-
ever, added three years later after a revision had been made. The words
rw Qiz'hv p through an oversight were allowed to remain. See Geiger, NacJi-
gelassene Schriften, III, p. 87, end of note 41 ; and Griitz, VI3, p. 273, n. 3.
Rosin, Ethik, p. 30, n. 3, says the postscript should read v^y\ &vky p. Cf.
Jaraczewski, ZPhKr., XL VI, p. 23, n. 3. 2 See page 28 for description of
the manuscript and the note referred to. Jaraczewski (Ibid., p. 22) states
that I. T. translated after the death of M. 3 Scheyer, Psychol. tiyst. d.
Maim., p. 9, n. 1, says, "Diese Schrift des M. ist eine ethisch-psychologische
Abhandlung." Steinschneider describes the Perakim as " the celebrated eight
chapters on psychology" (Jew. Lit., p. 102). Friedlander, Guide (1904), In-
trod., p. xx, styles them " a separate psychological treatise." The Dutch trans-
lation, 1845 (see infra, p. 32), has a sub-title, Maimonides Psychologic. See also
Yellin and Abrahams, Maimonides, p. 77. 4 Rosin, Ethik, p. 33, describes the
Perakim in general as an " Abriss der allgemeinen Ethik," and Chapters I and

11 as " die psychologische Grundlage der Ethik im Allgemeinen und Besonderen."
Wolff, Acht Capitel, Introd., p. xii, calls them a " System der Ethik."

INTRODUCTION 11

himself states, but with a reference here and there to some
other of his works may be easily made to do so.1 The Mish-
nah Commentary as a whole was written for those who were
unable or not disposed to study the Talmud, and for those who
were, to facilitate its study. Its philosophical and psycho-
logical parts were intended for those who, though they had
a knowledge of the Talmud, were unacquainted with philo-
sophical problems, or were unable to harmonize them with
Jewish thought. The Perakim, consequently, being intended
for readers not necessarily versed in philosophy, and some not
being deep students of the Talmud, avoid all intricate philo-
sophical and Talmudical discussions. For students versed
both in the Talmud and in philosophy, Maimonides wrote his
Moreh Nebukim, the object of which was to bring into harmony
Talmudical Judaism and peripatetic philosophy as developed
among the Arabs. Thus, the Mishnah Commentary, in which
the rabbinical and the philosophical elements are successfully
harmonized and blended, leads the way to Maimonides' master-
piece, the Moreh. The Perakim, then, may be looked upon as
an introduction to Maimonidean philosophy, and may be profit-
ably studied by the student before he attacks the problems
contained in the Moreh. They may be briefly described as a
treatise on the soul, its characteristics and powers, and their
employment towards the goal of moral perfection.2

Chapter I is psychological in character. It deals with moral
life, the sources of which reside in the soul (tTB3) and its
powers (nifO). The soul is a unit having various activities
(niSlSS) called powers (111113), and at times parts (Q'pbn).
Medical authors speak, however, of many souls, as, for instance,
Hippocrates, who says there are three souls, — the physical
(JV!ntO), the vital (rP3VlT), and the psychical (rPtTS3). The
improvement of morals (fiH^n ppfl) is the cure of the soul
and its powers. Therefore, just as the physician must know
about the body as a whole as well as its individual parts, so
must the moral physician know of the soul and all its powers

1 See infra, Chapter I, p. 45 ; Chapter V, p. 74 ; Chapter VII, p. 83 ; Chapter
VIII, p. 100. 2 See Gratz, VI3, p. 275.

12 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

or parts. There are five parts to the human soul : (1) the
nutritive (p!"I) ; (2) the perceptive (tTT")£!"!) ; (3) the imagi-
native (ntt"lttn) ; (4) the appetitive (VflSriDn), and (5) the
rational ( vDttfiT). Other beings are spoken of as having these
powers, but they are essentially different from those of man,
whose soul, as the bearer of human properties, is not the same
as that of other creatures, as the horse, the ass, or the eagle.

The nutritive part of the soul has seven powers, or proper-
ties : (1) the power of attraction ("]tt71£!T) ; (2) the power of
retention (|TH"Ifci"l) ; (3) the power of digestion (T>29ft!"I) ;

(4) the power of repelling superfluities (fYTimttv firm!"!) ;

(5) the power of growth (Ttl£!"I) ; (6) the power of propa-
gation (nftYlD TvlZSfJ), and (7) the power of differentiation
between the nutritive humors (WITv) and those to be repelled.

The perceptive part consists of the five senses, seeing (mXIH),
hearing (>£t#!T), smelling (fTHPt), tasting (D^lOn), and feeling

The imaginative part is the power of retaining impressions
of objects even when they do not perceptibly affect the senses,
and of combining them in different ways, so that the imagina-
tion constructs out of originally real things those that never
have nor can exist. The Mutakallimun overlook this truth as
regards the imagination, which they make the corner-stone of
their philosophical system.

The appetitive part is the power to long for a thing or to
shun it. From this there results the seeking after or fleeing
from a person or thing ; inclination and avoidance ; anger and
satisfaction ; fear and bravery ; cruelty and compassion, and
many other qualities (D'HpD, accidents) of the soul. The
organs of this power are all parts of the body.

The rational part is the power peculiar to man by which he
understands, thinks, acquires knowledge, and discriminates be-
tween proper and improper actions. This manifold activity of
the rational part is both practical and speculative. The practi-
cal activities are partly mechanical (rOtPfTtt rO&Ott) and partly
intellectual. The speculative activities are the powers of man
by which he knows things which, by their nature, are not sub-

INTRODUCTION 13

ject to change. These are called the sciences. The mechanical
power is that by which man learns the arts, as that of archi-
tecture, agriculture, medicine, or navigation. The intellectual
power is that by which man reflects upon the possibility or
manner of doing an intended action. The soul, which is a unit,
but which has many powers or parts, bears the same relation
to the intellect (TOttM) as matter does to form.

Chapter II, like Chapter I, is psychological in character.1
It deals with the powers of the soul, obedient or disobedient
to the Law, and the determination of the parts which produce
virtues or vices. Violations (JllTO!?) and observances (ni2tt3)
of the Law are found only in two of the parts of the soul,
namely, the perceptive and the appetitive. The nutritive and
the imaginative have no violations nor observances connected
with them, since these powers have neither knowledge nor
choice. There is some doubt as regards the rational power,
but if it has violations and observances, they are, respectively,
beliefs in false or true doctrines.

Virtues are of two kinds, ethical virtues (rfi1ft!"I fll T>2?£) and
intellectual virtues (rVTTOttM ni79£). Their opposites are the
two kinds of vices. Intellectual virtues are found in the rational
part. These virtues are wisdom (!"ID3)T), which is the knowl-
edge of the near and remote causes (HOD) of things based on a
previous knowledge of their existence ; reason (^DttT), which in
turn comprises (a) innate, theoretical reason (K1JT1 ^VSn TOttM
SntDD Vh XtffcJn) ; (5) acquired reason (,1^3,1 ^DEM) ; (c) sa-
gacity (rWOnn HOI), or intellectual cleverness (rtOJ"in 2110), or
the ability to quickly understand a thing. The vices of this
power are the opposites of these virtues. The ethical virtues
belong only to the appetitive part, and in this connection the
perceptive part is subservient to the appetitive. The virtues of
this power are very numerous. They are moderation (rVPPriT) ;
liberality (HOT) ; probity (""KPT) ; meekness (.113!?) ; humility
(Pirn nibBtP) ; contentedness (mparCPI) ; bravery (.11132),
and uprightness (Hlltt^). The vices of this power consist of

* On the title of Chapter II, see Hebrew text, p. 14, n. 1,

14 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

an exaggeration or a deficiency of these virtues. The nutritive
and the imaginative powers have neither vices nor virtues.

The diseases of the soul (ttfSJH ""7FT) are described in
Chapter III. The ancient philosophers laid down the dictum
that the soul, like the body, can be healthy or sick. A
healthy soul is in such a condition (Hi'DD) that only good and
honorable deeds flow from it. The opposite is true of a dis-
eased soul. Just as the physically sick desire things that are
bad for them, but which they consider good, so do those whose
souls are ill seek the bad and the evil, thinking that they are
good. Furthermore, just as those whose bodies are diseased
consult a phj^sician and take medicines that are unpleasant to
the taste in order that they may be restored to a healthy con-
dition, so must the morally ill consult the wise men (D^wf!!"!),
who are the physicians of the soul (ttfBJH "'XS'Tl), and ascertain
from them what are the bad and what are the good deeds.
They must follow the advice of the soul-physicians, even though
what they prescribe be distasteful. If a person is physically
ill, and does not consult a physician, his end will be premature
death, and, likewise, one morally ill, who does not seek the
advice of the sages, will experience a moral death.

Chapter IV deals with the cure of the diseases of the soul.
In agreement with Aristotle, Maimonides declares that actions
are good when they follow a medium course between two ex-
tremes which are both bad. Virtues are conditions (D'U'On)
of the soul and characteristics which are midway between two
states, one of which is excessive and the other deficient. Thus,
generosity is the mean between sordidness (HITS) and extrav-
agance OUS) ; courage (iTTQ3), the mean between recklessness
(nUSDS ITVD&) and cowardice (Snbn "p) ; humility (ITO),
that between haughtiness (ITIfcW) and self-abasement (fTPSE?
tmn), and so forth. People often consider one or the other
extreme a virtue, as when they praise the reckless man as be-
ing brave, or the lazy as being contented. To cure a person
who is morally unsound, that is who performs deeds which go
to the one or the other extreme, he should be made to practise
the opposite extreme until his original fault has been remedied.

INTRODUCTION 15

That is, if a man is niggardly, he must practise deeds of extrava-
gance until his niggardliness disappears. Then he is instructed
to stop his extravagance, and follow the medium course of
generosity. Man must constantly guard his actions that they
maintain the proper balance between exaggeration and defi-
ciency. By this means he gains the highest degree of human
perfection, comes nearer to God, and partakes of His eternal
blessings. This is the most perfect form of reverencing the
Deity. Maimonides ends the chapter by harmonizing the phil-
osophical and Talmudical views in regard to man's powers of
weighing his actions and following the proper mean.

The directing of the powers of one's soul towards a certain
goal is the subject of Chapter V. Man's one aim in life should
be to understand God. All his actions and words should be
so arranged as to accomplish this purpose, and consequently he
should seek not the most pleasant but the most useful things.
The body should be kept in a healthy condition for the sake
of the purity of the soul. When one partakes of food that
is pleasant but dangerous to the health, he is like a senseless
beast. Man acts sensibly only when all his actions are aimed
at gaining bodily welfare and spiritual superiority. Science
and education aid in this ; for the study of algebra, geometry,
and mechanics sharpens one's intellect, and enables one to
understand the truth of the proofs of God's existence. Man
ought to direct his words towards this goal. He should speak
only of such things as will benefit his soul, or avert danger
from his body. In consequence of this, man will desist from
many ordinary actions and words. He will not think of beau-
tifying the walls of his house with costly decorations or his
clothes with expensive embroideries, unless it be done for the
purpose of spiritual uplifting. Such an aim is lofty and dif-
ficult of attainment, but one accomplishing it ranks as high as
does a prophet. The rabbis have most wonderfully and con-
cisely expressed this sentiment by the saying, "Let all your
actions be for the sake of God." (Abot II, 12.)

In Chapter VI,1 Maimonides discusses the difference between
1 On title, see Hebrew text, p. 35, n. 1.

16 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

the saintly man (rnTSOn TDHH) and the one who curbs his
desires (1WBJ DK bttn&m m1 m EDm). Agreeing with
Aristotelian philosophy, Maimonides asserts that the truly vir-
tuous man practises the good as a result of an innate inclina-
tion to do so. He is superior to the one who, though he may
do deeds equally good, yet in order to accomplish them, must
subdue his desires which are of an evil nature. That is, the
condition of the saint's soul is better than that of the man who
subdues his passions. Proverbs XXI. 10, "The soul of the
wicked longeth for evil," agrees with this sentiment. The
rabbis, however, seem to contradict this opinion by saying
that he who has evil thoughts and desires, but who conquers
them, is greater than he who has no battle to fight. They
even maintain that the greater a man is, the more powerful
are his desires. On the face of it, the opinions of the rabbis
and the philosophers seem to disagree. But here Maimonides
uses his wonderful ability as a harmonizer of philosophical and
rabbinical doctrines. He explains away the contradiction by
stating that the philosophers meant by the desires for evil the
inclination to commit such transgressions as murder, stealing,
deceit, and so forth. The laws forbidding these are called by the
rabbis "commandments" (TfiiCtt), or "ordinances" (D'TDStPtt).
There is no doubt that a soul that desires any of these grave
evils is a bad soul. There is, however, another kind of less
important transgressions, the performance of which is prohib-
ited by statutes (Dpi"!). It is in reference to these evils, and
not to the first mentioned, that the rabbis say that if a man
desires, but conquers them, his reward is great. These are, for
instance, the partaking of meat and milk together, or the wear-
ing of clothes made of two different materials. The rabbis
would not say, any more than the philosophers, that the man
who desires to murder but refrains from doing so is greater
than the one who never desires to murder.

In Chapter VII, Maimonides discusses the partitions or walls
(filiTntt) which separate man from God, and also describes
what prophecy is. As explained in Chapter II, there are in-
tellectual and moral virtues, and their opposite vices. These

INTRODUCTION 17

vices, which are termed partitions, prevent man from behold-
ing God. As many vices, intellectual or moral, a man has, by
so many partitions is he separated from God. The prophets
"looked upon " God from behind the least number of partitions.
The fewer they were, the higher was the rank of the prophet.
Three virtues the prophets, however, must have, which Mai-
monides deduces from the rabbinical saying, " Prophecy rests
only upon the wise, the brave, and the rich." The wise man
is the one who possesses all intellectual virtues. The brave
man is he who conquers his desires. The rich man is the one
who is satisfied with his lot. Moses was the only prophet in
whom all moral and intellectual virtues were combined. The
only partition or wall between him and God was his physical
body, from which the spirit of man cannot divorce itself on
earth. This partition the rabbis call specularia,1 a transparent
wall, through which Moses gazed upon the highest truth, but
not as one does with human eyes.

The interesting problem of the freedom of will, in which
again Maimonides successfully blends the philosophical and
the rabbinical doctrines, is taken up in Chapter VIII. Mai-
monides begins with the statement that man is not born with
either virtues or vices, just as he is not born skilled in an art.
He may, however, have a predisposition towards a certain char-
acteristic, but every man's temperament is equally susceptible
to virtue as well as to vice. It is man's moral duty to encour-
age any predilection he may have towards virtue, and to stamp
out any desire for the vicious. No virtue is unattainable ; there
is no vice that cannot be avoided, no matter what man's natural
bent may be. The developing of what is good and the conquer-
ing of what is bad may be accomplished by instruction, guidance,
and habit. Astrologers, however, and those who believe with
them, maintain that a man's destiny, his conduct in life, in fact,
all his actions, are determined according to the constellation
under which he is born. This belief Maimonides denounces as
ridiculous. The rabbis and the philosophers alike agree in the
belief that man has absolute free choice, and that he alone is

1 See infra, chapter VII, p, 79, notes 3 and 4.
c

18 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

responsible for his actions. If this were not so, all commands
and prohibitions of the law would be in vain. All learning,
teaching, and effort of all kinds would be useless if man's actions,
knowledge, and characteristics were determined by an outside
power. If such were the case, reward and punishment would
be unjust; for no matter how much a man would try to do a
certain deed, if it were predetermined that he should not do it,
he would be unable to perform it. If Simeon killed Reuben,
it would be unjust to punish Simeon ; for he did not kill of his
own volition, but was forced to do so.

Maimonides then attacks a popular belief that all actions,
even such as sitting or standing, are done by the will of God.
In general, this is true, but not of any given individual action.
A stone thrown up in the air falls to the ground, which is in
accordance with a general law of nature that God willed at
creation. God, however, does not will that a certain stone at
a certain time, when thrown into the air, should fall to the
ground. At creation God willed also that man should have
certain characteristics, that he should walk upright, have a
broad chest, have fingers on his hands and so forth, and like-
wise man was endowed with the characteristics of having free-
dom of will which he can exercise. Maimonides then proves
that certain statements in the Bible which seemingly support
the theory of predestination are not of such a nature.

In conclusion, Maimonides takes up a question often asked,
" Does God know in advance that a certain man will do a good
or a bad deed at a certain time, or does He not know it ? " If
He does not know, then the principles of religion are under-
mined, for God is said to be all-knowing. If He does know in
advance, then this clearly proves that man's actions are pre-
ordained. Maimonides answers by having recourse to meta-
physics. God does not know, he says, by means of human
knowledge, nor does He live by means of human life, so that it
can be said He and His knowledge are distinct, or that He and
His life are different, as is true of man. God is, however, the
knower, the knowing and the known. He is the living, He is
the life, and the giver of life. Man cannot, owing to his imper-

INTRODUCTION 19

fections, comprehend what is the knowledge or life of God any
more than he can grasp what God Himself is. Thus, Maimoni-
des reconciles the two beliefs that man is free to choose, and
that God is yet all-knowing.

C. SAMUEL IBN TIBBON AS A TRANSLATOR— HIS TRANS-
LATION OF THE SH EM ON AH PERAKIM

Samuel ibn Tibbon,1 the most famous of an illustrious fam-
ily of translators, by his translation of Maimonides' Moreh
Nebukim, performed an inestimable service for Jewish philoso-
phy. Written originally in Arabic, the Moreh would have
remained a sealed book to the majority of Jews, had not Ibn
Tibbon rendered it accessible. Had he not translated it, no
doubt some one sooner or later would have accomplished that
task, but it was very fortunate that one who was a contempo-
rary of Maimonides, who had his entire confidence, and who
could correspond with the author in regard to obscure passages,
and receive valuable instructions from him, should have done
the work. From the correspondence between Maimonides and
the men of Liinel, Ibn Tibbon's birthplace, we note that Mai-
tnonides had a high regard for Samuel's ability as a translator,
and honored him as a man of erudition.2 It seems that the
scholars of Liinel wrote to Maimonides asking him to translate
the Moreh into Hebrew, but the answer came that Ibn Tibbon
was already at work on it, and that Maimonides had faith in the
translator.3 He considered Ibn Tibbon a capable and skilled
translator, and wondered at his knowledge of Arabic, although
he did not live in an Arabic-speaking country.

Shortly after Ibn Tibbon translated the Moreh, Jehudah al-
Harizi, the poet, was asked by a number of scholars to do the
same work. This, of course, implied that Ibn Tibbon's render-
ing was not satisfactory to them. They wished al-Harizi to

1 Born 1160, died 1230. See Renan-Neubauer, Les Bobbins Franqais, p.
673 ff. ; also Les Ecrivains Franqais ; Gratz, VI3, 205 ; Winter and Wtinsche,
Die Jud. Litteratur, II, 330, 385 ; M. Schloessinger, in JE., vol. VI, p. 548 ;
Geiger, Judaism and its History (New York, 1911), pp. 375-376. 2 On
Maimonides' correspondence with the men of Liinel, see HUb., pp. 415-416.
» Gratz, VI8, p. 324 ; HUb., p. 417.

20 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

translate the Moreh in a simple, clear and polished style, as the
version of Ibn Tibbon, being literal, was necessarily heavy.
Al-Harizi prefixed to his work two introductions, one contain-
ing an alphabetical list of " strange words," and the other, the
contents of each chapter. It is fortunate for Ibn Tibbon that
al-Harizi, too, did the same work, for a comparison shows the
marked superiority and excellence of Ibn Tibbon's translation.
In his Grlossary of Strange Words, which he later prefixed to the
Moreh, Ibn Tibbon rightfully shows the many errors and short-
comings of the translation of al-Harizi, who might be a good
poet, but who showed his ignorance when he attempted to deal
with scientific matters.1

Pococke's opinion of the two translators is interesting. He
says, " The version of Harizi is inferior to that of Ibn Tibbon,
not because that of Tibbon is more elegant, but as regards mat-
ter it is closer to the original text."2 Shem Tob ibn Palquera
in a letter says, " In Ibn Tibbon's translation there are only a few
errors ; and if the learned translator had had time he would
certainly have corrected these. But in al-Harizi's translation
mistakes are numerous and words are often given a wrong
meaning." 3 Munk scores Ibn Tibbon's translation as a mere
cast of the original and unintelligible to the ordinary Hebrew
reader.4 Steinschneider,5 in commenting on this harsh criti-
cism, shows the difficulties that faced Ibn Tibbon, and points

1 Cf. HUb., p. 420 ff. ; Kaufmann, Der F'uhrer MaimunPs in der Weltlittera-
tur, AGPh., XI, p. 346 ff. See especially Kaufmann, Attrib., p. 493, n. 182,
where are mentioned a number of those who find fault with al-Harizi's trans-
lation and introductions. Abraham ben Maimon says of him : inpnjn nn'rw
nSpSipci neois'D (Kobez, III, f. 16b coll.). Ibn Tibbon in his own Glossary of
Strange Words especially condemns that of al-Harizi with the words : IXD «S ••JNI
D'San nn vjcS IJFN ^yvr\ nc'ND D'Sis'ua N*?n I'M *nnn -iysns> TCNO icis nx:pi nNjtr
C'S>33>Di D^SD >jflS o>Si:s>3Di nvjro D^io nsfM. See also Friedlander, Guide,
. 1904, Introd., p. xxxii. 2 Preface to Porta Mosis, " Versis (Charisii) illi
ab Aben Tibbon factae postposita, fuit, non quod ilia Tibbonidae elegan-
tior, sed materiae congruentior fuerit," etc. 8 HUb., p. 432 ; JE., art., Ibn
Tibbon. 4 Munk, Guide, I, Preface, p. ii, "La version d'Ibn-Tibbon, qu'on
peut appeler un veritable ' caique ' de 1'originale arabe, ne peut etre bien com-
prise que par celui qui possede a la fois la connaisance de 1'arabe et celle de
1'hebreu rabbinique et qui a acquis des notions suffisantes de la philosophic mu-
sulmane et de sa tenninologie." 6 HUb., pp. 419, 423.

INTRODUCTION 21

out the value of his translation, even though it is largely a lit-
eral one. He maintains that Ibn Tibbon's work will continue
to be one of the most important in the history of translations,
for it laid the foundation of Hebrew philosophical style with its
syntactical and terminological Arabisms.1 Gratz contemptu-
ously calls Ibn Tibbon a "handicraftsman in philosophy."2

While it is true that Ibn Tibbon's style is not the best, he
should not be criticized too severely on this account. He con-
sciously avoided elegance of expression for the sake of accuracy,
and in order to faithfully render the original even went so far
as to reproduce ambiguities. As far as possible, he consulted
Maimonides on difficult passages.3 One must remember, too,
that Ibn Tibbon was a pioneer in the art of translating from
Arabic into Hebrew, that he had no patterns to go by,
except the works of his father, Jehudah, that a philosophical
Hebrew vocabulary did not exist, and, in consequence, even the
most ordinary terms had to be coined.4 Ibn Tibbon was well
aware of the difficulties that the reader would meet in his
translation, and in order to avoid these as far as possible
composed a Glossary of Strange Words,5 in which he ably
explains the philosophical terms employed. He realized fully
that his translation contained Arabisms,6 but wherever it was
possible to use a Hebrew word or expression he did so. Many
words and constructions in Hebrew which Ibn Tibbon used for
the first time to convey the Arabic sense are now commonly
accepted philosophical terms. It is unjust, moreover, to judge
Ibn Tibbon by the ordinary texts of the works he has trans-
lated. Not until a carefully prepared and revised text of the
Moreh has been published will one be able to determine accu-
rately his ability and his shortcomings. Judging by the expe-
rience of the editor in his textual work in the Perakim, often

1 Arab. Lit., p. 205. 2 Gratz (Eng. ed.), Ill, p. 566. 8 See his Preface to
the Moreh, also Friedlander, Guide, Introd., p. xxviii. 4 He had as guides his
father's translations and various Arabic books which he possessed. See his
Preface to the Moreh, also HUb., p. 416. 5 On I.T.'s Glossary (mSn ID e>r^B
nnr), see HUb., p. 421 ff. 6 On Arabisms of I.T., see his Preface to the
Moreh ; also HUb., pp. 419-420.

22 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

an otherwise obscure or meaningless passage is rendered clear
by evidence from manuscript, or other reliable sources.

Ibn Tibbon translated Maimonides' Commentary on Abot, in-
cluding its introductory chapters, the Perakim, at the request
of the men of Liinel,1 who were presumably convinced of his
capabilities by what Maimonides thought of him. All that has
been said of Ibn Tibbon as a translator of the Moreh is true
generally of his work on the Perakim. As in the Moreh, he
sacrificed style for the sake of accuracy, and so, on the whole,
translated with great literalness, very often word for word.
Wherever he has to any marked degree departed from the orig-
inal, the fact has been mentioned in the notes. As an instance
of the care he exercised in turning the Arabic into Hebrew, we
may point to his rendering the Arabic phrase X7K Drn"?K,
meaning "unless indeed," into the Hebrew fcO DK DTPK, which
very naturally gave rise to a misreading,2 or, where preserved
correctly, was unintelligible save to those who were acquainted
with the Arabic idiom. This shows the justice of Munk's criti-
cism. Wherever Ibn Tibbon was uncertain of the translation
of an Arabic word, which might be rendered by one of two
Hebrew words, his usual custom was to put one in the text and
the other in the margin. These variants came afterwards into
the text. In regard to the Moreh, he relied upon the advice of
Maimonides as to which should be eventually used.3 It seems,
however, that he did not consult Maimonides in reference to
the Shemonah Perakim, and consequently at obscure points
introduced glosses, noted by the expression "that is to say"
CTffte), or "I mean" (S"*)), or "the explanation of" ('SS).
An instance of this is seen in Chapter II, where, after the words
" as moderation " (filTniD), there is added the phrase " that is
to say, fear of sin " (KtDh RT "IBI^D).4

At the beginning of Chapter IV, where the doctrine of the

1 See LT.'s Preface to his translation of the Commentary on Abot : 1*0
[some Mss., Twaa] Tiara :nn onpn -\vx trpioni nroDen DN? BTVD \-n?is -vj? S^jiS •>n3n
o'Diaj mm 1DND3 w$ T^No onS ifvnyn1? >jc3 wpa nijijj?. See Preface to Porta
Mosis, p. 4, and Perakim, ed. Slutcki, p. 3. 2 See Hebrew text, c. V, p. 32,
n. 28. 8 See I.T.'s Preface to the Moreh. * See Hebrew text, c. II, p. 16, n. 1.

INTRODUCTION 23

Mean is discussed, Ibn Tibbon has taken what in his case may
be considered great liberties with the text, resulting in such a
divergence from the original that Rosin1 was compelled to
assume that the translator had before him an Arabic text dif-
fering from that of the manuscript reproduced in Pococke's
Porta Mosis. The order of the list of virtues in Ibn Tib-
bon's version in no manuscript or edition is the same as
that of the original, although the manuscripts and editions
disagree among themselves in this regard. There are also a
number of glosses, explaining in detail some of the virtues.
The reason for a change in arrangement seems to be hinted
at in one of the glosses, written in all likelihood by Ibn
Tibbon, where there occurs the phrase, " and for this reason I
have arranged them thus" ("p DTHID PTPl).2 The nice dis-
tinction drawn by Maimonides between the extremes of the
various virtues he discusses was sufficient cause for Ibn Tibbon
to have introduced explanatory glosses, as it was impossible for
him to find in Hebrew the proper words for the fine Arabic
terminology. The necessity of elucidation becomes apparent
from the fact that a number of glosses which did not originate
with Ibn Tibbon are found in some of the sources.3 It may,
consequently, be maintained that the Arabic text we have to-
day is substantially the same as that~from which Ibn Tibbon
translated,4 and also that, on the whole, the Hebrew of the
Perakim follows the Arabic very closely.

It is needless to go into detail here as to the peculiarities of
Ibn Tibbon's translation, as these are taken up in the notes
on the text. The critical text of the Hebrew offers in places
valuable evidence on obscure readings in the Arabic, attention
to which has also been drawn in the notes.6

1 Rosin, Ethik, p. 31, n. 2. 2 See Hebrew text, c. IV, p. 21, line 8. 8 See He-
brew text, c. IV, p. 19, notes 16 and 17. * The translators of the Mishnah
Commentary seem to have had only one copy from which they all translated.
Geiger, Moses ben Maimon, p. 83, n. 43. 5 See Hebrew text, c. VIII, p. 42,
n. 14 ; p. 43, n. 7 ; p. 47, n. 6 ; p. 53, n. 1.

24 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

D. DESCRIPTION OF COLLATED MATERIAL— GENERAL
REMARKS ON THE TEXT

A glance at the long list of manuscripts and editions of the
Perakim shows the impracticability of trying to collate all the
material available. The editor has, therefore, chosen a number
of the most valuable sources, and has minutely compared them,
being constantly guided by the Arabic. He has confined his
attention as far as the Arabic is concerned to the Pococke ver-
sion and that of Wolff based on it. A careful collation of Arabic
texts may, however, clear up some points which are still left
in doubt. The editor hopes to accomplish this task some day.

The material used in collation is as follows :

Br = manuscript of British Museum Add. 14763, written
A.D. 1273, containing Samuel ibn Tibbon's translation of Mai-
monides' Commentary on Abot preceded by Ibn Tibbon's intro-
duction to and translation of the Shemonah Perakim. This is the
oldest and, on the whole, the best source known to the editor.
It is very carefully written, with scarcely any scribal errors.
For the first six chapters its evidence is very reliable. In the
seventh chapter it begins to vary from the original Arabic, and
in the eighth it departs rather widely, having readings which
agree substantially with those of some unreliable sources. It
is possible that the first six chapters were copied from one
source, the seventh and eighth from another. This manuscript
is characterized throughout by an almost superfluous use of
the matres lectionis, even in Biblical quotations. It has a few
vocalized words, all of which have been recorded in the notes.

Ma = a manuscript Mahzor, Roman rite, fourteenth or fif-
teenth century ; in the library of the Jewish Theological Sem-
inary of America. Its readings are, on the whole, close to the
Arabic, in places superior to those of Br, especially in Chapters
VII and VIII, where the latter is faulty. The revised text of
these two chapters is based mainly on this manuscript. There
are, however, many, though unimportant, omissions, except in
one instance in Chapter VIII,1 where all texts depart from the

1 See Hebrew text, p. 61, n. 10.

INTRODUCTION 25

original, on account of which lack of evidence on the part of
Ma, the editor has been obliged to reconstruct the text. It
has a number of errors such as misspelled words and minor
repetitions, due to carelessness of the scribe, or to a faulty
source. A few vocalized words and marginal readings, chiefly
of a later hand, occur.

So = Maimonides' Commentary on Abot, Soncino (1484—85 ?).
It is found in the libraries of Columbia University, of the
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and elsewhere, and
is an incunabulum. It is minutely described by De Rossi, in
Annales Hebraeo Typographici, Parma, p. 131. It was prob-
ably copied from the Soncino edition of the Mahzor.1 Its chief
value lies in its being in places corroboratory of Br or Ma.
Only occasionally does it offer an independent reading of value.

Mi = Mishnah text with Commentary of Maimonides, Naples,
1492 ; printed by Joshua Soncino.2 This is the first edition of
the Mishnah. The copy used by the editor is found in the
library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. It
has marginal notes offering corrections, as well as some inter-
linear insertions. It agrees substantially with So, its source
evidently being the same, both being Soncino editions.. Va-
riants from it are recorded in the notes only when differing
from those of So.

As it has been the aim of the editor to restore the text as it
came from the pen of Ibn Tibbon, it has very often become
necessary for him to place in the notes readings whose Hebrew
is superior to that of those retained in the text.3 Ibn Tibbon,
on the whole, translated literally, and consequently the literal-
ism of a reading indicates conclusively that it originated with
him. The more idiomatic renderings are due to copyists, who
endeavored to improve the text, but who, it may be added,

1 See Catalogo di Opere Ebraiche Greche Latine ed Italians stampate dai
Celebri Tipografi Soncini ne1 Secoli XV e XVI, Compilato da Gaetana Zaccaria
Antonucci, p. 113 ; Steinschneider, Supplementum Catalogi libr. hebr.in Biblioth.
Bodleiana, in Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen (Leipzig, 1894), Vol. XI, p. 486,
and JE., vol. VI, p. 578, art. Incunabula. 2 See Antonucci, Catalogo, etc.,
pp. 63-54. 3 See, for instance, Hebrew text, c. I, p. 9, n. 1.

26 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

through their ignorance of the Arabic constructions, at times
introduced errors into their manuscripts.1

In order, however, to equalize the text and render it as
smooth as possible, wherever one source has a reading which
in minor details is more correct grammatically than that of
another, though perhaps better manuscript or edition, the
former reading is preferred without mention in the notes,
although the looser rendering may go back to Ibn Tibbon.
This is especially true as regards the agreement of suffixes and
pronouns with their nouns. Thus, D!"Q, DHtt, etc., of So are
often retained in preference to JHD, ptt, etc., of Br or Ma,
although the latter are more authoritative sources.2

Emendations of the text have been avoided unless supported
by good authority, and always by that of the original Arabic,
as, for instance, in Chapter VIII,3 where all the Hebrew
sources are at fault, the manuscripts and editions reading,
TOKl, inn&X, -pn&1, or naxi inn&X. The Arabic Kl^ne
points plainly to an original in^l.

Glosses which can be traced to Ibn Tibbon are printed in
small type. All other glosses are put in the notes.

The reader can generally tell the source on which a given
part of the text is based by the absence of the sign of that
source from the notes. In Chapters I to VI, for instance, the
sign Br is seldom present in the notes, which indicates that the
text follows that manuscript very closely. The character of
the notes in this regard should, however, be taken into consid-
eration. Thus, Chapters VII and VIII are based mainly on
Ma, but that sign appears often in the notes because of minor
errors and omissions in its text. Variants occurring in Mi are
noted only when they differ from those in So.

1 See Hebrew text, c. V, p. 32, n. 28. 2 1.T. was conscious of such errors in his
translations. See his Preface to the Moreh, in which he refers to his father's
(Jehudah's) Preface to his translation of Bahyaibn Pakuda's niaarn main, where
Jehudah dwells upon the difficulties in translating from Arabic into Hebrew.
Cf. HUb., p. 374. 8 See Hebrew text, p. 54, n. 37.

INTRODUCTION 27

E. MANUSCRIPTS — EDITIONS — TRANSLATIONS — COMMEN-
TARIES

For a list and description of the Arabic manuscripts contain-
ing the Thamaniat Fusul (Shemonah Perakim), see Gated. Jiodl.,
1889-1890.

The Arabic text, in Hebrew characters, with a Latin transla-
tion is contained in : —

1. Porta Mosis sive Dissertationes Aliquot a R. Mose Mai-

monide, suis in varias Mishnaioth, etc., by Edward Po-
cocke (Oxford, 1654), pp. 181-250.

2. The Theological Works of the Learned Dr. Pocock, edited

by Leonard Twells (London, 1740), pp. 68-93.1

3. It has also been edited by Wolff, with a German transla-

tion, under the title Thamaniat Fuml, Musa Maimum's
Acht Capitel. Arabisch und Deutsch mit Anmerkungen
von Dr. M. Wolff (Leipzig, 1863). Second revised
edition, Leiden, 1903.

In the following are enumerated a partial list of manuscript
works containing the whole Abot Commentary, and also of the
manuscript Mahzorim in which the Shemonah Perakim are
found : 2 —

I. WITH ABOT

Oxford Bodleian Library *

376.3. Massekhoth Aboth, with Sh'muel ibn Tibbon's translation of M.'s com-
mentary. Copy made by Mord'khai ben Levi jfpn at Ferrara for H.

1 The Porta Mosis also contains the other introductions found in Maimoni-
des' Commentary on the Mishnah, namely, the Introduction to the Mishnah
(erroneously called in Seder Zeraim praefatio) , the introduction to Perek Helek,
to Kodoshim, to Tohoroth, and to M'nahoth. Twells, in his account of the life
and writings of Pococke, says (p. 44) that the Mss. Pococke made use of "were
very good and some of them, he imagined, the very originals written by the
author's (M.'s) own hand." Jaraczewski (ZPhKr., XL VI, p. 22) states that
Pococke used an Oxford Ms. The title page of the Porta Mosis has the imprint
of H. Hall Academiae Typographies, 1655, but the title page of the Appendix is
dated 1654. 2 See, also, Catalogues des Manuscripts Hebreux et Samaritains
de la Bibliotheque Imperiale (Paris, 1866), nos. 3321, 334*, 605, 609, 617, 674s,
7502, and 119110, and catalogues of other libraries. 8 Neubauer, Catalogue.

28 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Noah ben 'Immanuel Norzi; finished on Sunday, 22d of lyyar, 5237
(1477) (German rabbinical characters).

409.3. Fol. 285. On Aboth, translation of Sh'muel Tibbon. In M.'s commen-
tary on Mishnah (German rabbinical characters).

714.2. Fol. 54. Sh'muel ibn Tibbon's preface and Heb. translation of M.'s
commentary on Aboth and of the Eight Chapters (Italian rabbinical
characters) .

1254.2. Fol. 112. M.'s commentary on Aboth in Heb. (German rabbinical
characters).

2282.3. Fol. 14. Sh'muel ibn Tibbon1 s translation of M.'s Eight Chapters and
his commentary on Aboth, with marginal notes by a later hand (German
rabbinical characters).

British Museum Library1

Add. 14763. Sam'l ibn Tibbon' s translation of M.'s Commentary on nias, pre-
ceded by Ibn Tibbon's introduction and c^no 'n, A.D. 1273.2

Add. 16390. M.'s a'p-io 'n, XVIth century.

Add. 17057. The aipie n:iDt? of M. and his Commentary on Aboth (imperfect),
translation from the Arabic into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon, XVth
century.

De Rossi Library (Parma) 8
Cod. 46. 3°. R. Mosis M. Scemone Perakim, seu octo Capita de animae facul-

tatibus a R. S. Tibbonide hebraice versa. Sec. XV.
Cod. 71. Pirke Avoth seu Capitula patrum cum Comm. Maimonidis ejusque

praefat ; memb. rabb. in 4° in Sec. XV.
Cod. 269. 2°. Pirke Avoth cum Commentario Maimonidis ac fusa ejus praefa-

tione ; membr. rabb. in 4°. an. 1444-

Cod. 273. 1°. Pirke Avoth seu Capitula patrum cum Com. Maimon.
Cod. 327. 8°. Maimonidis Comm. in Pirke Avoth cum fusa praef. seu octo

Perakim ex R. S. Tibbonides translatione.

Cod. 353. P. A. seu capitula patrum cum Comm. Maimonidis, etc. Sec. XV.
Cod. 438. 6°. M. Comm. in P. A. cum praef. Sam. Tibbonidis. Ad calc. vero

Com. M. in P. A. haec reperiuntur " Finita est translatis comm. hujus

tractatus ex lingua arab. in sanctam mensa tebelh an. 963 (chr. 1202)

quern vetrit in arce Liinel sapiens philosophus, eruditus in omnia scien-

tia, R. Sam. fil. sapientis magni R. Jeh. aben. Tib. fel. m. Granatensis

hispanus."
Cod. 1161. 2°. Pirke avoth cum commentario M. et fusa ejus prefatione. An.

1419.
Cod. 1246. 1°. R. M. M. Perachim, Capitula de facultatibus animae seu fusa

praefatio ad P. A.

2°. P. A. seu Capitula patrum, cum M. com. ex versione R. aben T.

Sec. XIV.

1 Margoliouth, Hebrew and Samaritan Mss., London, 1893. 2 See supra,
p. 24. 8 Mss. Codices Hebraici, Parma, 1803.

INTRODUCTION 29

Cod. 1262. R. Mosis Maim. Tredecim articuli fidei et Commentarius in P. A.
cum fusa seu Capitibus de facult. animae. Auni 1454.

Koniglichen Hof und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen l

1281. Maimonides (maw -DD -e) voran die s. g. 8 Kapp. (29712, 3277), h. von Sam.

Tibbon ; N. 2102. Sp. curs XV Jahrh.
210a. Schon. ital. rabb. XIV-XV J. dann verschied ; s 16.

35b, man 'DD e>WB s. N. 128 am Rand vow. f. 35, 35b Raschi, 946 zu

K. 6, etc.
29712. 299 f . span. Curs, gross bis 62, 199 b-240, 296 ff . a. 1431-9. 231 Maimoni-

des (oipna ruiDt? s. n. 108) K. 3 ff. Saml. Tib.'s Vorw. f. 240b angefangen.
3277. (55b-71b) S"st p"D p wo wai paion Snjn annS mas rwn »wfl enthalt

nur das Vorw. des Uebersetzers S. ibn Tib. und die a^pia njiDB> (so zuletzt,

vgl. 1281. Zeile 3, 4 im Akrost. des Abschreibes lautet :

"D jai an
•unnni njnn <ja /ijn1? oSia uru

DJ nyatp pn jni jn>?«

4017. (Von der Hand des Cod. 400 XV-XVI J.) 269. Ms' acht Kapitel. Ant
und Mitte def ; s. Cod. 128 zuletzt Minuskel 1498.

Koniglichen Bibliothek (Berlin)*

60 (Ms. Or. Qu. 498.) Kleine italien. Cursiv, gegen Ende XV (?) Jahrh. Be-
sitzer : Benj. Pesaro. (man naoa) der talinud. Tractat Aboth, Text in
grosserer Schrift & punktirt mil dem Commentar des Maimonides dessen
Einleitung, bekannt als a>pifl njin^ (8 Kapitel) vorangeht.

752 (Ms. Or. Oct. 138.) Pergament, 303 Seiten, grosse schone span. rabb. Hand.
etwa XIV Jahrh. S. 86 maw roon S~T a"annS C'IT'B (zuletzt) Commentar
des Mose Maimonides zum Tractat Abot (ohne Text, vgl. Cod. 567, Fol.
498 Qu1). Der erste Abschreiber fand die Vorrede des Uebersetzers
Sam'l ibn Tibbon erst nachtraglich und schrieb sie S. 293-303, etc.

H. MAHZORIM

British Museum

Harley 5686. IITHD for the whole year, Roman rite. Aboth with M.'s com-
mentary and his Eight Chapters in Sam'l ibn Tibbon's transl. XVth
century.

Add. 16577. mrno Roman rite, includes Aboth with Eight Chapters and com-
mentary of M. in Hebrew translation of Samuel ibn Tibbon. XVth
century.

1 Steinschneider, Die Hfb. Handschriften, Munich, 1875. 2 Steinschneider,
Verseichniss der Heb. Handschriften, Berlin, 1878.

30 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Add. 27070. Part 1 of a iiinc, Roman rite, including Aboth with the Eight Chap-
ters and Commentary of M. in Samuel ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation.
XVth century.

Add. 19944-19945. -nine, Roman rite, including Aboth with the Eight Chapters
and Commentary of M. in the Hebrew translation of Samuel ibn Tibbon.
A.D. 1441.

De Rossi Library

Cod. 63. Mahzor . . . item Pirke Aboth cum com. Maimonidis membr. rabb.

in 4° min. Sec. XV. M.'s com. in Pirke Avoth quern in Machazorim

passim, addi supra animadvertimus, est ex Hebr. versione R. Samuelia

Aben Tibbon. Occurrunt etiain ejusdein M. octo Perakim seu capita.
Cod. 260. Mahzor . . . Accedunt Pirke Avoth seu Capitula patrum cum com.

M. . . . memb. rabb. fol. min. sec. XV. M. com. Pirke Av. et epistola

de resurrectione sunt ex versione R. Samuelis Aben Tib. ; ac prior ille

praefixaim, habet fucam auctonus praefationem, seu Capitula de facultati

bus animae.
Cod. 378. Mahzor seu Purim et Pesach cum libro Esther, etc. — et. M. Com.

P. A. ex versione S. Aben T. memb. rabb. Mutilis in 4° : maj. sec. XIII.

Vetustus codex singularibus, instructus lectionibus, etc.
Cod. 403. Mahzor hisp. cum Sect, biblicia ac Psal. occurr. . . . P. A. cum

com. M. Minhag seu Treves, memb. rabbin, in 8° an. 1470.
Cod. 420. Mahzor ital. ; cum Ruth, etc. P. A. cum Com. M. sec. XV.
Cod. 740. Mahzor ital. . . . Pirke Avoth cum comm. Maimonidis, membr.

rabb. fol. min. vel. 4° Maj. Sec. XV.
Cod. 767. Mahzor ital. . . . P. A. cum comm. M. membr. rabb. in fol. an

1463.

Cod. 770. P. A. cum M. Comment, hebr. verso a R. S. aben Tib. Sec. XIV.
Cod. 802. Mahzor italicuin . . . P. A. cum com. M. ei Perachim seu VIII

capitibus. Sec. XV.
Cod. 814. Mahzor ritus italici . . . P. A. . . . cum comm. M. ej. ° Perachim

membr. ital. 1489.
Cod. 955. Mahzor hisp. . . . P. A. cum com. M. ; membram hisp. fol. sec.

XIV vel XV.
Cod. 959. Mahzor romanum ° vel italicum . . . P. A. cum com. M. ac Jarchii

ej. M. Perachim an. 1400.
NOTE. — Maimonides com. in P. A. qui est consueta Sam. Tibbonidis

versione praemittur interpretis et auctoris altera f usior de animae facul-

tatibus quam scemone perachim seu octo capitula inscripsit.
Cod. 1212. Machazor italicum . . . P. A. cum com. M. ac fusa ejus praef. seu

Octo Capitibus. Sec. XV.

Jewish Theological Seminary (New York)
Mahzor. Roman rite, fourteenth or fifteenth century.1

1 See supra, pp. 24-25.

INTRODUCTION 31

EDITIONS OF THE SHEMONAH PERAKIM

The Perakim are found in all editions of the Mishnah and
Talmud which contain the Commentary of Maimonides.1 The
text of the Perakim contained in the first edition of the Mishnah
agrees substantially with that found in the Commentary on Abot
which has been collated by the editor, and designated by So.
Both were printed by Soncino.la The Perakim in the first
edition of the Talmud are practically in accord with these.

The Commentary on Abot with the Perakim was incorporated
into the Italian ritual (1484) and also into the Greek ritual
(since 1520). 2 They may also be found in the Mdhzorim of the
Soncino Brothers, Soncino, 1485 (finished, Casal Maggiore,
I486),3 and Rimini, 1521, and in the Bologna edition of the
Mahzor, 1540-1541.*

EDITIONS OF ABOT WITH THE SHEMONAH PERAKIM

1. Abot with commentary of Maimonides, including the She-
monah Perakim, Soncino, 1484 ; described on page 25.

2. JH p SwrroK pror pn "si oaain «a DS rvo« pna
no* nSro nn -i&K&n otw mpi SMS-OK rmrp,i545.
,TW rwrm.6 4°.

3. nOK p*)S, with commentary of Maimonides, London,
5532 (1772).6 12°.

SEPARATE EDITIONS

1. Hurwitz, Abraham.6 . . . DmSK 'tt JfeW QTOK HDH 1BD

Dp*lB roitttf S^ pimn ^n3^ IS. Lublin, Kalonymos
ben Mordechai Jafe und sein Sohn Chojyim. 1574.

2. teSWnWK triD<in Dr« . . . &W Vienna, 1798. 8°.

1 See Fiirst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. II, p. 309. la See supra, p. 25. 2 HUb. ,
pp. 437-438. (7a«aZ. Bodl., 1890, 2483. 3 See Antonucci, Catalogo, etc., p. 115.
HUb., p. 438, n. 477. * Rosin, .EWh'fc, p. 31, n. 2. 5 See Catalogue of the
Cohen Library, Baltimore, Md. 6 Other editions of the same are Lublin, 1616 ;
ib., 1622 ; Krakau, 1577 ; ib., 1602. See Fiirst, loc. cit. Hurwitz was a pupil
of R. Moses Isserles ; see Monatsch. fur Gesch. und Wissenschaft des Judenthum
(1903), vol. XI, p. 163, n. 1. 7 According to the preface, it follows a Latin
text, presumably that of Pococke, but its text is hardly different from that of the
other editions.

32 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

3. Lichtenstein (Abraham ben Eliezer). ppTII p13t JVI 1BD

Sprat powa -o rwa irm ••pis un bv nova nnan.

Wilna, 1799. (I03pn) M^Yl. 4°. (Contains only chap-
ters I-V.)

4. v*i ayixsD-OT'K |9ttrawi -«n to^o aatyinb npiB rmarc

SSKJDIK Sto-lSDSn-ISS pw. Basel, 1804. Printed by
Wilhelm Haas.1
5. Salomon, Gotthold.2 . . . D"p-|B mitttt bbl'D ppPJtt

Dessau, Moses Philippsohn, 1809. 8°. With
vowels.

6. Beer, Michal. tn&'lS D^plB !TOtf. Le huit Chapitres

de Maimonide^ etc., trad, en franc. 8°. Paris, 1811.

7. Acht Abschnitte 3 . . . aus dem Arabischen. Braunschweig,

1824. 8°.

8. Falkenheim, S. Die Ethik des Maimonides oder Schemoneh

Perakim; deutscJi bearbeit. Konigsberg, 1832. 8°.

9. D"2X2*lS D^plB H310W. De Acht Hoofdstukken van Mai-

monides. Bevattende zijne Zielkundige Verhandeling.
Set Hebreeuwsch op nieuw nagezien en in het Nederduitsch
vertaald.* Groningen, S. J. Oppenheim, 1845.
10. Slucki, David. D'SainS Dp*lB m»W in bvTW^ ni23n.
Contains also a biography of Samuel Ibn Tibbon and
notes. Warsaw, 1863.

11. Wolf, Michai. POT? vnnb prea n'^rb o^pis
rvnsri vbv ^01:1 ^bxii b^^o nxa oisib toim

m3W n2 mwin. Lemberg, 1876 (Follows ed. Dessau,
1809). With vowels, but unreliable.

COMMENTARIES, ANNOTATED EDITIONS, AND
TRANSLATIONS

The commentaries on the Perakim are found in some of the
above-mentioned editions. They are the D!"PQK IDPI *1BD by

1 Haas was a member of the Acad. der mech. Kiinste in Berlin. 2 HUb.,
p. 488. Salomon was a teacher at the Freischule in Dessau ; Beer, Rabbi Moses
ben Maimon, p. 72. 3 Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the British Museum,
p. 587. * A copy is found in the Columbia University Library (N.Y.).

INTRODUCTION 33

Hurwitz, which is found in all editions of the Talmud which
contain Maimonides' commentary,1 and that of Lichtenstein in

his p*ra pn "\so.

The annotated editions are those of Vienna, 1798 ; Dessau,
1809 ; Groningen, 1845 ; Warsaw, 1863 ; and Lemberg, 1876.

The popularity of the PeraTcim is evident from the fact that
they have been translated many times into various languages.
The following is a list of the translations : —

a. Latin. — The Perakim in Latin2 are found in : —

(1) Pococke's Porta Mosis, from the Arabic. (2) The trans-
lation of the Mishnah, with the commentaries of Maimonides
and Bartinora, by Surenhusius.2* (3) The unedited transla-
tion of Maimonides' Commentary on Abot, by Jacob Manti-
nus.3 (4) The translation of Maimonides' Commentary on
Abot, by C. C. Uythage*.

b. Grerman. — In the editions of (1) Vienna, 1798 ; (2) Haas,
Basel, 1804 ; (3) Salomon, Dessau, 1809 ; (4) Wolff, Leipzig,
1863 and Leiden, 1903, from the Arabic; (5) Wolf, Lemberg,
1876 ; (6) by M. Rawicz, in Kommentar des Maimonides zu den
Spruchen der Vater, ins Deutsche iibertragen, 1910, pp. 1-47.
Portions of chapters I and VIII are translated by Beer, in R.
Moses ben Maimon.

c. French. — Beer, Paris, 1811 ; Jules Wolff,4* Paris, 1912.

d. Dutch. — Groningen, 1845.

e. English. — Hebrew Review, edited by Morris J. Raphall,
London, Volumes I and II (1834-1835). 6

1 See Fiirst, loc. cit. 2 Jaraczewski (ZPhKr, XL VI, p. 23) refers to a
Latin translation which appeared in Bologna in 1520. 2a Mishnah sive totius
Hebraeorum juris, rituum, antiquitatum, aclegum oralium systema cum Maimo-
nidis et Bartenorae commentariis inteyris. Accedunt variorum auctorum notae
Latinate donavit G. Surenhusius. Amstelaedami, 1698-1703. 3Jak. Mantino
(A. in Tortosa) Octo Capita R. Mosis Maimonidis . . . in versione latino, etc.
Bologna, 1526. 4°. See Fiirst, loc. cit.; HUb., p. 438. * Cnej. Cornel.
Uythage (in Leyden), Explicatio K. Mosis Maimonidis . . . complectens octo
capita, etc., Leyden, 1683. 8°. HUb., p. 438. ** See Jew. Chronicle (London),
No. 2255, p. 30. 5 Incomplete and very free. Chapter IV is translated by Coup-
land in Thoughts and Aspirations of the Ages, London, 1895, pp. 206 ft .

FOREWORD

THE author, Rabbi Moses (may God preserve him!) said:1
We have already explained in the introduction to this work
(i. e. the Commentary on the Mishnati) the reason the author
of the JMishnah had for putting this treatise (Abot) in this
Order (Nezikin)2. "We have also mentioned the great benefit
that is to be derived from this treatise, and have promised
many times in preceding passages to discuss certain important
points at some length in commenting upon it. For, although
the contents of the treatise seem clear and easy to under-
stand, yet to carry out all that it contains is not a simple
matter for everybody. Moreover, not all of its contents is in-
telligible without ample comment, withal that it leads to great
perfection and true happiness. For these reasons, I have deemed
it advisable here to go into a more lengthy discussion. Besides,
our Rabbis of blessed memory have said, "He who wishes to
be saintly, let him practise the teachings of Abot"3. Now,
there is nothing that ranks so high with us as saintliness,
unless it be prophecy, and it is saintliness that paves the way
to prophecy ; as our Rabbis of blessed memory said, "Saintliness
leads to holy inspiration." * Thus, their words make it clear

1 See Hebrew text p. 5, n. 2. The introductory words are by ibn Tibbon.

2 See Goldschmidt, Der Bdbylonische Talmud, I, Berlin, 1897, Einleitung
in die MiSnah von Moses Maimonides, p. XXX; and Hebrew Review, vol.
I, p. 191.

3 Baba Eamma, 30 a: ^a D"p^ NTon irns^ <m \XK> 'Nn mw *ai ten

"o n1? -neto masn ^B IBN ton pp'in

« 'Abodah Zarah, 20 b: K»n TNT T^ rwna m» riijjf *\*b rwaa nrron
TV nto3» KBH rwv

FOREWORD 35

that the putting into practice of the teachings of this tractate
leads one to prophecy. I shall later expound the truth of this
assertion, because upon it depends a number of ethical prin-
ciples.

Further, I deem it fit to preface the commentary on the re-
spective Haldkot1 proper by some useful chapters, from which
the reader may learn certain basic principles which may later
serve as a key to what I am going to say in the commentary.
Know, however, that the ideas presented in these chapters and
in the following commentary are not of my own invention;
neither did I think out the explanations contained therein,2
but I have gleaned them from the words of the wise occurring in
the Midrashim, in the Talmud, and in other of their works,
as well as from the words of the philosophers, ancient and
recent, and also from the works of various authors,3 as one

1 I. e., the verses of Abot.

2 See H. Malter, Shem Tob Joseph Palquera, in JQ R (new series), vol. I,
p. 163, n. 21.

3 The "ancient" philosophers upon whom M. drew, although not always
from the sources (see Munk, Guide, I, p. 345, n. 4; Rosin, Ethik, p. 5,
n. 4), are Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, especially Aristotle (see Introduction,
p. 5, n. 2), Alexander of Aphrodisias (Moreh, I, 31; II, 3), and Themistius
(Ibid., I, 71). By the "recent" philosophers M. means Abu Nasr al-Farabi
(Ibid., I, 73, 74; II, 15, 18, 19; III, 18), Ibn Sina, al-Gazzali, Abu Bekr Ibn
al-Zaig (Ibid., I, 74; II, 24 twice; III, 29), but hardly Ibn Roshd (Averroes).
The "works of various authors" refers to the ethical writings of M.'s
Jewish predecessors, among whom were Saadia, Ibn Gabirol, Bahya, Bar
Hiya, Ibn Zaddik, Yehudah ha-Levi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Ibn Daud.
See M.'s Letter to Ibn Tibbon, in Kobe? Teshubot ha-Rambam, II, 28b;
Munk, Ibid., I, p. 107, n. 1 ; p. 345, n.' 4; p. 433, n. 2; 434, n. 4; III, p. 417,
n. 2, and p. 438, n. 4; Beer, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon pp. 47-50; Geiger,
Nachgelassene Schriften, III, Moses ben Maimon, p. 41 ; Kaufmann, Attri-
butenlehre, p. 324, n. 186; Rosin, Ibid., pp. 5-25, 96, n. 3; Wolff, Acht Capitel,
Introduction, XII-XIII; Cohen, Charakteristik, in Moses ben Maimon, I p. 79;
in JE, articles on the Greek, Arabic, and Jewish philosophers mentioned
in this note, and article by I. Broyde, Arabic Philosophy— Its Influence
on Judaism, II, p. 58. On M.'s relation to Ibn Roshd, see Munk, Notice
sur Joseph ben-Jehouda, p. 31, and n. 1; Steinschneider, Catal. Bodl., Moses

Maimonides.

c*

36

should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds.1
Sometimes, I may give a statement in full, word for word in
the author's own language, but there is no harm in this, and
it is not done with the intention of glorifying myself by pre-
senting as my own something that was said by others before
me, since I have just confessed (my indebtedness to others),
even though I do not say "so and so said", which would ne-
cessitate useless prolixity. Sometimes, too, the mentioning of
the name of the authority drawn upon might lead one who
lacks insight to believe that the statement quoted is faulty, and
wrong in itself, because he does not understand it. Therefore,
I prefer not to mention the authority, for my intention is only
to be of service to the reader, and to elucidate for him the
thoughts hidden in this tractate. I shall now begin the
chapters, which, in accordance with my intention, are to serve
here as an introduction, which is to consist of eight chapters.

1 See Jaraczewski, Die Ethik des Maimonides, etc., in ZPhKr., XL VI,
p. 9; and H. Malter, Ibid., p. 169, n. 31.

CHAPTER I

CONCERNING THE HUMAN SOUL AND ITS FACULTIES*

KNOW that the human soul is one,2 but that it has many
diversified activities. Some of these activities have, indeed, been
called souls, which has given rise to the opinion that man has
many souls, as was the belief of the physicians, with the result
that the most distinguished of them3 states in the introduction
of his book that there are three souls, the physical, the vital,
and the psychical.4 These activities are called faculties and

* For a discussion of the contents of this chapter, see Scheyer, Psychol.
Syst. d. Maim., c. I; Jaraczewski, ZPhKr., XL VI, pp. 9 — 10; and Rosin,
Ethik, p. 45 ff. A summary of the Perakim is found in Speier, The Three-
fold Cord (London, 1891), Appendix.

2 In Moreh, I, 41, M. explains the term soul (B>D3) as being " the vital-
ity which is common to all sentient beings." Cf. Aristotle, De Anima,
c. 1 (ed. Hicks, pp. 50 and 51), "Hence soul is the first actuality of a
natural body having in it the capacity of life." On the homonymous use
of the word WBi, see Moreh, loc. cit.

* Hippocrates, the creator of medical science. See Rosin, Ethik, p. 45;
Wolff, Acht Oapitel, p. 1, n. 2; M. Schloessinger, in JE., VI, p. 403.

* M. opposes the belief in the existence of three souls, but uses this
classification to designate a threefold division of the soul's faculties, al-
though, later in this chapter (see infra, pp. 38 — 39), he divides the faculties into
five classes. In Moreh, III, 12, he points to the threefold division of the
faculties, where he says, "all physical, psychical, and vital forces and
organs that are possessed by one individual are found also in the other
individuals." See, also, ibid., Ill, 46 (end), where the appetitive (mttnn), the
vital (JViVnn), and the psychic (rfH&BJn) faculties are enumerated. Bahya,
Ibn Gabirol, and Ibn Zaddik seem to have believed in the existence of
three souls in man. See I. Broyde in JE., vol. xi, art. Soul. Abraham
ibn Daud, in Emunah Ramah, I, 6 (ed. Weil, 1842), also, opposed the belief
of the physicians, supporting the Aristotelian view of the unity of the soul,
as did M. Consult Scheyer, Psychol. Syst. d. Maim., p. 11, n. 3; Munk,
Guide, I, p. 355, n. 1; idem, Melanges, p. 38, n. 1; p. 40, n. 3; p. 54, n. 2;
Rosin, Ethik, p. 45, n. 1; Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 398, n. 60.

38 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

parts, so that the phrase "parts of the soul," frequently employed
by philosophers, is commonly used. By the word "parts", how-
ever, they do not intend to imply that the soul is divided into
parts as are bodies, but they merely enumerate the different
activities of the soul as being parts of a whole, the union of
which makes up the soul.

Thou knowest that the improvement of the moral qualities
is brought about by the healing of the soul and its activities.1
Therefore, just as the physician, who endeavors to cure the
human body, must have a perfect knowledge of it in its entirety
and its individual parts, just as he must know what causes
sickness that it may be avoided, and must also be acquainted
with the means by which a patient may be cured, so, likewise,
he who tries to cure the soul, wishing to improve the moral
qualities, must have a knowledge of the soul in its totality and
its parts, must know how to prevent it from becoming diseased,
and how to maintain its health.2

So, I say that the soul has five faculties; the nutritive [also
known as the "growing" faculty], the sensitive, the imaginative,

1 The phrase, the improvement of the moral qualities (nvran Jipfi, Ar.
p«!?5«^« riN^SK), is one which M. probably borrowed from Ibn Gabirol, author
of Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh (The Improvement of the Moral Qualities) to
designate the practical task of ethics. Cf. Rosin, Ethik, pp. 12, 37, n. 5.
M. is not concerned with a theoretical discussion of ethics, but with the
problem as to how one's moral qualities are to be improved, which is a
practical question. Therefore, the science of curing the soul is to him as
practical as is that of healing the body. What Aristotle says in Eth. Nic.,
II, 2 may well apply here. "Since, then, the object of the present treatise
is not mere speculation, as it is of some others (for we are inquiring not
merely that we may know what virtue is, but that we may become virtuous,
else it would be useless), we must consider as to the particular actions
how we are to do them, because, as we have just said, the character of
the habits that shall be formed depends on these."

2 Philo, too, speaks of a physician of the soul (Quod Omnis Probus
Liber, I, 2). Cf. Eth. Nic., I, 12, where Aristotle states that it is necessary
for the Politician (moralist) to have a certain knowledge of the nature
of the soul, just as it is for the oculist to have a knowledge of the whole
body, and in fact more so, as Politics (ethics) is more important than the
healing art.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— I 39

the appetitive, and the rational.1 We have already stated
in this chapter that our words concern themselves only with the
human soul; for the nutritive faculty by which man is nourished
is not the same, for instance, as that of the ass or the horse.
Man is sustained by the nutritive faculty of the human soul,
the ass thrives by means of the nutritive faculty of its soul,
and the palm-tree2 flourishes by the nutritive faculty peculiar
to its soul. Although we apply the same term nutrition to all
of them indiscriminately, nevertheless, its signification is by no
means the same. In the same way, the term sensation is used
homonymously 3 for man and beast; not with the idea, however,

1 M. agrees with Aristotle as to the number of the divisions of the
faculties of the soul, but instead of the latter's faculty of motion, has that
of imagination. 5wd/j.ea 8' etiropev ^pfirTixbv (}in), 6peicnK6t> (TWriOn), ai<r§r)ruc6i>
(B^iltan), KivT)riKbv KO.T& rbmov, 5iavoriTu<6i> (^5tWl). De Anima, II, 3, ed. Hicks,
pp. 58 and 59. M.'s division is preferable to that of Aristotle, motion being
subservient to the appetitive and the rational faculties, as Aristotle himself
states (De Motu Animalium, chaps. 6 and 8). M. considers motion, espe-
cially that of the limbs of the body, to be dependent upon the appetitive
faculty (see infra, p. 43), and to be "an accident pertaining to living things"
(Moreh, I, 26). Of., also, ibid. I, 46 (n pn mptt ^3K Tin Dxutt ny« jmnnff);
and Aristotle, Physics, V, 2. See Scheyer, Psychol. Syst. d. Maim., p. 11,
n. 3; p. 14, n. 4. Al-Farabi (niKSwn m!?nnn, in epDHH IBD, Leipzig, 1849, p. 2)
divides the faculties as follows : nonon nsni rumen rDm(^3»n of M.)rnnon ran
BPjnion nsni. In making his division, M. seems to have had in mind the divi-
sions of Aristotle and al-Farabi. By adding the nutritive faculty (jtn),
which Aristotle includes in his list, to the list of al-Farabi we have M.'s
list. See Rosin, Ethik, p. 47, n. 4.

2 See Hebrew text, c. I, p. 9, n. 9.

3 n»n *|in»a; Ar. DDN^K -jN-intPfcO, homonymously, i. e. the participation
of two things in the same name. In Millot ha-Higgayon, c. XII, M.
defines this term as follows. "If a noun has a number of significations

it is a homonym The word ^y, which is used to designate the

eye which sees, and a fountain, is a homonym. The common or appelative
noun (see Munk, Guide, I, Introd., p. 6, n. 2) designates something common
to two or more things, and by such a word we recognize, as regards each
of these things, the class to which it belongs on account of the conception
of the thing which each shares in common, as, for instance, the word
living (Tl) which is applied to a man, a horse, a scorpion, and a fish; for
life, which consists of nutrition and sensation, is a common possession of
each one of these species." In this sense, the words nutrition (]NJ) and

40 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

that the sensation of one species is the same as that of another,
for each species has its own characteristic soul distinct from
every other, with the result that there necessarily arises from
each soul activities peculiar to itself. It is possible, however,
that an activity of one soul may seem to be similar to that of
another, in consequence of which one might think that both
belong to the same class, and thus consider them to be alike; but
such is not the case.

By way of elucidation, let us imagine that three dark places
are illumined, one lit up by the sun shining upon it, the second
by the moon, and the third by a flame. Now, in each of these
places there is light, but the efficient cause in the one case is
the sun, in the other the moon, and in the third the fire. So
it is with sensation and its causes. In man it is the human
soul, in the ass it is the soul of the ass, and in the eagle, the
soul of the eagle. These sensations have, moreover, nothing in
common, except the homonymous term which is applied to them.
Mark well this point, for it is very important, as many so-called
philosophers have fallen into error regarding it, in consequence
of which they have been driven to absurdities and fallacies.

Returning to our subject of the faculties of the soul, let me
say that the nutritive faculty consists of (1) the power of at-
tracting nourishment to the body, (2) the retention of the same,
(3) its digestion (assimilation), (4) the repulsion of superfluities,
(5) growth, (6) procreation, and (7) the differentiation of the
nutritive juices that are necessary for sustenance from those
which are to be expelled.1 The detailed discussion of these
seven faculties — the means by which and how they perform their
functions, in which members of the body their operations are
most visible and perceptible, which of them are always present,
and which disappear within a given time — belongs to the science
of medicine, and need not be taken up here.

The faculty of sensation consists of the five well-known senses

sensation (tf'ilfi) are homonyms. See Munk, Guide, I, Introd., p. 6, notes
2 and 3; and Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, pp. 420, n. 91, 460, n. 148, 461,
n. 149.

1 The first four of these powers are discussed with more detail in
Moreh, I, 72. See Munk, Guide, I, p. 367, n. 6.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— I 41

of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and feeling, the last of
which is found over the whole surface of the body, not being
confined to any special member, as are the other four faculties.
The imagination is that faculty which retains impressions of
things perceptible to the mind, after they have ceased to affect
directly, the senses which conceived them. This faculty, com-
bining some of these impressions and separating others from
one another, thus constructs out of originally perceived ideas
some of which it has never received any impression, and which
it could not possibly have perceived. For instance, one may
imagine an iron ship floating in the air, or a man whose head
reaches the heaven and whose feet rest on the earth, or an
animal with a thousand eyes, and many other similar impossi-
bilties which the imagination may construct and endow with
an existence that is fanciful.1 In this regard, the Mutakallimun11

1 M. defines imagination in Moreh, I, 73, Tenth Proposition, Note. It
is the opposite of the intellect which "analyzes and divides the component
parts of things, it forms abstract ideas of them, represents them in their
true form as well as in their causal relations, derives from one object a
great many facts, which — for the intellect — totally differ from each other,
just as two human individuals appear different to the imagination; it
distinguishes that which is the property of the genus from that which is
peculiar to the individual, — and no proof is correct unless founded on the
former; the intellect further determines whether certain qualities of a
thing are essential or non-essential. Imagination has none of these functions.
It only perceives the individual, the compound in that aggregate condition
in which it presents itself to the senses; or it combines things which
exist separately, joins some of them together, and represents them all as
one body or as a force of the body. Hence it is that some imagine a
man with a horse's head, or with wings, etc. This is called a fiction, a
phantasm; it is a thing to which nothing in the actual world corresponds.
Nor can imagination in any way obtain a purely immaterial image of an
object, however abstract the form of the image may be. Imagination
yields, therefore, no test for the reality of a thing." Further (ibid. II, 36)
it is stated that part of the functions of the imagination is to retain im-
pressions by the senses, to combine them, and chiefly to form images.
The most perfect developement of the imaginative faculty results in
prophecy. See infra, p. 47, and n. 3.

a The Mutakallimun were a sect of dogmatic or religious philosophers
who tried to harmonize Mohammedan theology with Aristotelian philosophy.
Starting with the "word of God" (kaJdm, A6-yos), as contained in the Koran,

42 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

have fallen into grievous and pernicious error, as a result of
which their false theories form the corner-stone of a sophistical
system which divides things into the necessary, the possible, and
the impossible; so that they believe, and have led others to
believe, that all creations of the imagination are possible, not
having in mind, as we have stated, that this faculty may at-
tribute existence to that which cannot* possibly exist.1

The appetitive is that faculty by which a man desires, or
loathes a thing, and from which there arise the following

they endeavored to reconcile revelation with philosophy. I. T., in his
Glossary of Strange Words, harshly criticizes them as "a sect of pseudo-
scientists without wisdom." T. J. De Boer says of their system of philo-
sophy, "An assertion, expressed in logical or dialectic fashion, whether
verbal or written, was called by the Arabs, — generally, but more particularly
in religious teaching— Kalam (A6yoj), and those who advanced such
assertions were called Mutakallimun. The name was transferred from the
individual assertion to the entire system, and it covered also the intro-
ductory, elementary observations on Method, — and so on. Our best de-
signation for the science of the Kalam is 'Theological Dialectics' or
simply 'Dialectics', and in what follows we may translate Mutakallimun
by 'Dialecticians'," Geschichte der Philosophic im Islam, Stuttgart, 1901,
p. 43 ff.; Eng. ed., London, 1903, pp. 42-43. To M. we are indebted for
a knowledge of the details of the system of the Mutakallimun, which he
describes in a masterly way in his famous attack on the Kalam (Moreh,
I, 71 — 76). He is vehemently opposed to them, not because of the views they
held in regard to the universe and God, many of which coincided with
his own, but on account of the method they pursued in arriving at their
conclusions. On the Mutakallimun, and the Kalam, see Yehudah ha-Levi,
Cuzari, c. V; Munk, Melanges, pp. 311-312, 318 if.; idem, article Arabes,
in Dictionnaire des Sciences philosophiques ; idem, Notice sur R. Saadia
Gaon, p. 156 ff.; idem, Guide, I, p. 335, n. 2; Steinschneider, Heb. Lit.,
p. 117; idem, HUb., p. 415; Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, see index; M. Gut-
mann, Das Religionsphil. Syst. d. Mutakallimun nach der Berichte des Mai-
mun, Leipzig, 1885; Ludwig Stein, in AGPh., vol.' XI, pp. 330-334;
Schreiner, Der Kalam in der judischen Literatur, Berlin, 1895; S. Horo-
vitz, in ZDMG, 57, p. 177 ff.; I. Goldziher, Vorlesungen uber den Islam,
(Heidelberg, 1910), p. 100 f.; 127 f.; 129; 172 f.; 177 f.; etc.

1 Cf. Moreh, I, 73, Tenth Proposition, in which M. describes the theory
of admissibility of the Mutakallimun, which forms the principal support
of their doctrine (n&Dn lies inn irror IPX rra»nn n«» NTI rrw»n nonpnn
D^aion). Everything conceived by the imagination, they maintain, is ad-
mitted as possible. Cf., also, ibid., I, 49; III, 15. See Scheyer, Psychol.
Syst. d. Maim., pp. 12-13; Munk, Guide, I, p. 400, n. 2.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— I 43

activities: the pursuit of an object or flight from it, inclination
and avoidance, anger and affection, fear and courage, cruelty
and compassion, love and hate, and many other similar psychic
qualities.1 All parts of the hody are subservient to these ac-
tivities, as the ability of the hand to grasp, that of the foot to
walk, that of the eye to see, and that of the heart to make
one bold or timid. Similarily, the other members of the body,
whether external or internal, are instruments of the appetitive
faculty.*

Reason, that faculty peculiar to man, enables him to under-
stand, reflect, acquire knowledge of the sciences, and to discriminate
between proper and improper actions.3 Its functions are partly
practical and partly speculative (theoretical), the practical being, in
turn, either mechanical or intellectual. By means of the spe-
culative power, man knows things as they really are, and which,
by their nature, are not subject to change. These are called
the sciences4 in general. The mechanical power is that by

onp&n, psychic accidents. Cf. Moreh, I, 51. "It is a self-
evident fact that the attribute is not inherent in the object to which it
is ascribed, but it is superadded to its essence, and is consequently an ac-
cident." See, also, ibid., I, 73. Fourth Proposition. With M.'s description
of the appetitive faculty compare that of al-Farabi, in niNSDJn JY6nrn, p. 2:
i« ,UDD man? 1« lain ppanso rvaruMn rmwnnn ,T.T na w« ton m-njnsm
nsnvn ,na'«m wnm ,nan«m n«:»n IT.T iai ,inp'riT» i« ,inDK&n» IN irn«rv»
.»Bjn npa n«Bn nw&mm nmoNm ,pvn warn ,]inttani

2 Cf. Moreh,I,46 •. tfsan m^»s^ D^D D^ID "o-'isni nno nmjn nnx no«n 0^12 o^an
'D1 niB^nnDn. All the organs of the body are employed in the various
actions of the soul. Cf. Aristotle, De Anima, III, 10, ed. Hicks, pp. 152
and 153.

3 Cf. Millot ha-Higgayon, c. XIV (beg.) : "The word dibbur as used by
former philosophers of cultured nations, is a homonym having three
significations. In the first place, it is used to designate that power
peculiar to man by which he forms conceptions, acquires a knowledge of
the sciences, and differentiates between the proper and the improper.
This is called the reasoning faculty or soul." Cf. Ibn Daud, Emunah
Ramah, I, 6.

4 CLEth.Nic., VI, 3: "What science is is plain from the following con-
siderations, if one is to speak accurately, instead of being led away by
resemblances. For we all conceive that what we scientifically know cannot
be otherwise than it is So, then, whatever comes within the

44 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

which the arts, such as architecture, agriculture, medicine, and
navigation are acquired.1 The intellectual power is that by
which one, when he intends to do an act, reflects upon what
he has premeditated, considers the possibility of performing it,
and, if he thinks it possible, decides how it should be done.2

This is all we have deemed it necessary to say in this regard
concerning the soul. Know, however, that the soul, whose facul-
ties and parts we have described above, and which is a unit,
may be compared to matter in that it likewise has a form,
which is reason. If the form (reason) does not communicate its
impression to the soul, then the disposition existing in the soul
to receive that form is of no avail, and exists to no purpose,
as Solomon says, "Also in the want of knowledge in the soul
there is nothing good".3 This means that if a soul has not

range of science is by necessity, and therefore eternal — because all things
are so which exist necessarily — and all eternal things are without be-
ginning, and indestructible."

1 Of. Millot ha-Higgayon, loc. cit.: ibw *)np& DB> n^npn to« nsK^O Dwm

neon to i«tp"i ,DTOs6Dn nwem to to p Di ini^S'i mvp neon to to
,-DNbei ]nb nfivw n»i rvasnm nniano nnx to ixip^i ,mv9 naxbc K'-BiDi^sn.
Of., also, Eth. Nic. VI, 4, on "Art."

2 With M.'s definition of the rational faculty compare that of al-Farabi
(niNSDin nibnnn, p. 2) : Dos^oni nmann mxn \w n n»« «in inon nani.
See Rosin, Ethik, p. 47, n. 4; Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 398, and
note 60. On this faculty and its functions, see Scheyer, Psychol. Syst. d.
Maim., pp. 14-29; Rosin, Ethik, pp. 49-51, and Wolff, Acht Capitel,
p. 7, n. 1.

The following scheme will elucidate the divisions of the functions of
the rational faculty, according to M.

Reason Ctopn nan ,nmn nsn ,rn:non ts>Bjn ;
Ar.

Practical ("WD; Ar."^ey) Theoretical Oil"? ^n-'iv

Mechanical (ni2»no nDS^a Intellectual ("atyntt ; Sciences (nitsDn; Ar. Dito);
^"IWD rott'jO; Ar.

Ar. "3,10)

Architecture, etc.
Prov. XIX, 2.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— I 45

attained a form but remains without intelligence, its existence
is not a good one.1 However, this is not the place for us to
discuss such problems as that of form, matter, and the number
of different kinds of intelligence, and their means of acquisition;2
nor is it necessary for what we have to say concerning the
subject of ethics, but is more appropriately to be discussed in
the Book on Prophecy, which we mention (elsewhere).3
Now I conclude this chapter, and begin the next.

1 M. considers matter and form in the Aristotelian sense. The prin-
cipia of all existing, transient things are matter, form, and the absence
of a particular form (Moreh, I, 17). Matter (ittin ,fnNB, ^ 6X17) consists
of the underlying, basic substance of a thing, which has a potential but
not a real existence, its true nature consisting in the property of never
being without a disposition to receive a form (ibid., Ill, 8). Every sub-
stance is endowed with a form (mis, finis, TO etSos), or incoporeal being
(ibid., II, 12), by means of which that substance is what it is. That is,
through form that which is potentially in existence comes into real exi-
stence (Aristotle, Physics, II, 3; Metaphysics, I, 3), and upon it the reality
and essence of a thing depend. When the form is destroyed, the thing's
existence is terminated (Moreh, III, 69). As soon as a substance has
received a certain form, the absence or privation (Twnn, ms^N) of that
form which it has just received has ceased, and it is replaced by the privation
of another form, and so on with all possible forms (ibid., I, 17). Of.
Aristotle, Physics, I, 5-7; also )n nil, c. IX. Matter is constantly seeking
to cast off the form it has in order to receive another, and so form does
not remain permanently in a substance. M. aptly compares matter to a
faithless wife, who, although not being without a husband, continually
seeks another man in his place (Moreh, III, 8). The soul, according to
Aristotle, is the form of the body which, as matter, has merely a potential-
ity for existence. See supra, p. 37, n. 2. He says, "It must follow, then, that
soul is substance in the sense that it is the form of a natural body having
in it the capacity of life." (De Anima, II, 1, ed. Hicks, pp. 48 and 49).
M. agrees with this, and says in Tesode ha-Torah, IV, 8. "The soul of
all flesh is its form which God has given it." The human soul, however,
needs in turn a form in order that it may become a reality. The soul's
form is, as M. states here, reason (^3tf, ^pP, vovi), or more definitely the
acquired reason (napan bst?; see Scheyer, Psychol. Syst. d. Maim., c. Ill;
also p. 59, note E; p. 65 ff., especially p. 66), and it this that makes man
what he is. Cf. Moreh, I, 7. "It is acknowledged that a man who does
not possess this form, is no man."

2 See Moreh, I, 68; Scheyer, ibid., c. II, c. Ill, and especially Munk,
Guide, I, pp. 304-308, note.

3 In Perek Helek, Seventh Article of Faith (Holzer, Dogmenlehre, p. 24;

46

I. Friedlaender, Arabic Writings of M., p. 32), M. mentions his intention
of writing a Book on Prophecy and a Book of Harmony (ifflN PP3K "p'B^
•si 13 porno "i«w nNttan nans IN wro11 i»« rwnn wiTsa DK iDipe^), for the
purpose of elucidating the exoteric lessons of the prophets and of the
Midrashim. After having started, however, he abandoned this intention,
and later incorporated the material for the Book on Prophecy in the Moreh,
Part II, in chapters 32 to 48, and that of the Book of Harmony (HBD
TTKIOTin) he scattered throughout the Moreh. See Moreh, I, Introd.; Bloch,
Charakteristik und Inhaltsangabe des Moreh Nebuchim, in Moses ben Maimon,
I, pp. 7, 8 and 15.

CHAPTER II

CONCERNING THE TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE

FACULTIES OF THE SOUL AND THE DESIGNATION

OF THOSE FACULTIES WHICH ARE THE SEAT OF

THE VIRTUES AND THE VICES t

KNOW that transgressions and observances of the Law have
their origin only in two of the faculties of the soul, namely,
the sensitive 2 and the appetitive, and that to these two faculties
alone are to be ascribed all transgressions and observances.
The faculties of nutrition and imagination do not give rise to
observance or transgression, for in connection with neither is
there any conscious or voluntary act. That is, man cannot
consciously suspend their functions, nor can he curtail any one
of their activities. The proof of this is that the functions of
both these faculties, the nutritive and the imaginative, continue
to be operative when one is asleep, which is not true of any
other of the soul's faculties.3

1 For a discussion of the contents of this chapter, see Scheyer, Psychol.
Syst. d. Maim., p. 102 ff. ; Jaraczewski, ZPhKr., XL VI p. 10; and Rosin,
Ethik, p. 54 ff. On the title, see Hebrew text, c. II, p. 14, n. 1 and 2.

J In ascribing transgressions and observances to the faculty of sensation,
M. differs from Aristotle who asserts that sense is the originating cause
of no moral action, since brutes, too, are possessed of sense-, but are in no
ways partakers of moral actions (Eth. Nic., VT, 2). M., however, draws a
distinction between the sensitive faculty of man and that of animals. Sen-
sation as applied to man and beast is a honionymous term, the sensitive
faculty of man being different from that of all other animate beings. See
supra, c. I, pp. 39 — 40.

3 M. differs from al-Farabi who ascribes participation in moral and im-
moral acts to all the faculties of the soul (rrtiTCDin rv6nnn, p. 35 ff.). The

48 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

As regards the rational faculty, uncertainty prevails (among
philosophers) *, but I maintain that observance and transgression
may also originate in this faculty, in so far as one believes a
true or a false doctrine, though no action which may be de-
signated as an observance or a transgression results there-
from.2 Consequently, as I said above, these two faculties (the

latter, however, does not consider nutrition to be one of the faculties.
Abraham ibn Daud, including nutrition among the soul's faculties, allots
to each a cardinal virtue (Emunah Ramah, III, p. 110). Aristotle excludes
the imagination as one of the faculties directly affecting the performance
of virtues, but considers it as producing movement through the agency
of appetency (De Anima, III, 10). M., later, departs somewhat from the
view he holds in the Perdkim regarding the imagination, and, in agreement
with Aristotle, considers it to be bound up indirectly, through the appeti-
tive faculty, with conscious activity (see Scheyer, ibid., pp. 98, and 105).
This is the sense of the passage in Moreh, II, 4, where he states that
animate beings move either by instinct (P3B considered equivalent to PO
"niynttn), or by reason. Instinct he defines as the intention of an animate
being to approach something agreeable, or to shun something disagreeable,
as, for instance, to approach water on account of thirst, or to avoid the
sun on account of its heat. He, then, goes on to say that it makes no
difference whether the thing really exists or is imaginary, since the ima-
gination of something agreeable or of something disagreeable likewise causes
the animate being to move (Tin D"J SjmrY1 nwty noi 1J33 Nintf ntt JV&13 "O).
Furthermore, in Moreh, II, 12, he declares that all defects in speech or
character are either the direct or indirect work of the imagination (*?3 '3
\hy& nriN -jt?»3 IN pnsin bj?s Kin rmea IN -121:1 pnon). In regard to prophecy,
M. lays great stress upon the imagination (ibid., II, 35), considering pro-
phecy to be the most perfect development of the imaginative faculty.
During sleep this faculty is the same as when it receives prophecy, except
that when asleep the imagination is not fully developed, and has not
reached its highest perfection. See supra, c. I, p. 41, n. 1.

1 See Rosin, Ethik, p. 55, n. 1.

2 Of. Moreh, II, 4, "But even a being that is endowed with the faculty
of forming an idea, and possesses a soul with the faculty of moving, does
not change its place on each occasion that it forms an idea; for an idea
alone does not produce motion, as has been explained in (Aristotle's) Meta-
physics. We can easily understand this, when we consider how often we
form ideas of certain things, yet do not move towards them, though we
are able to do so ; it is only when the desire arises for the thing imagined
that we move in order to obtain it." Cf. De Anima III, 10. The same
thought is expressed in Eth. NIC. VI, 2, "And so since moral virtue is a

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— II 49

sensitive and the appetitive) alone really produce transgressions
and observances.

Now, as for the virtues, they are of two kinds, moral and
intellectual, with the corresponding two classes of vices.1 The
intellectual virtues belong to the rational faculty. They are
(1) wisdom, which is the knowledge of the direct and indirect
causes of things based on a previous realization of the existence
of those things, the causes of which have been investigated; 2 (2) rea-
son, consisting of (a) inborn, theoretical reason, that is, axioms,3
(b) the acquired intellect,* which we need not discuss here, and

disposition exercising choice, and choice is will consequent on deliberation,
the reason must be true and the will right to constitute good choice, and
what the reason affirms the will must pursue . . . But operation of the in-
tellect by itself moves nothing, only when directed to a certain result — i. e.
exercised in moral action . . ." See Scheyer, ibid., p. 103 — 104; and Rosin,
Ethik, p. 56, n. 2.

i Cf. Eth. Nic., (ofxrcu -finical and diavorjriKai) I, 11 (end); II, 1 ; VI, 2; Eude-
mian Ethics, II, 1 ; Millot ha-Higgayon, c. XIV (nvnim ni!?jm nrmn rtbyti).

s Wisdom (n»3n), according to M., is used of four different things
(Moreh, III, 54). It denotes (1) the knowledge of those truths which lead
to the knowledge of God, (2) the knowledge of any workmanship, (3) the
acquisition of moral principles, and (4) cunning and subtlety. In Moreh,
I, 69, where M. demonstrates that God is the Primal Cause, in agreement
with Aristotle (Physics, II, 7), he asserts that everything owes its origin
to four causes, the substance, the form, the agens (^JHB), and the final cause
(rpbsn). These are sometimes direct (D^"lp), and sometimes indirect (D^pim),
though each in itself is a cause (rfov or mo, corresponding to Ar. <*-X* and
*_-*-^«M>; alrla, atnov. Cf. Munk, Guide, I, p. 313, n. 1.)

8 Literally, first impressions (fiWBWin rflbSBflOn; Ar. !?lit!?N rtN^pJJD; apxai
rQ>v airoSfiKT&v a&6fjMTa, intelligibilia prima), which are fundamental principles
or axioms that would need no proof even though man were left in his
primitive state (Moreh, I, 51), and which are explained by common sense.
There are four kinds of knowledge which need no demonstration, one of
them being the knowledge of axioms, as, for instance, that the whole is
greater than a part, that two is an even number, that two things equal to
the same thing are equal to each other (Millot ha-Higgayon, c. XIV), and
that one cannot both affirm and deny a thing. See Scheyer, note to
Moreh, I, 51. Cf. Eth. Nic., VI, 6 on Intuitive Apprehension; Scheyer,
Psychol. Syst. d. Maim., p. 16 — 17; and Munk, Guide, I, p. 128, n. 3.

* For the definition and description of the acquired intellect (HipiH bys
or bSNin mpin hytl; Ar. IXSnoobN hpvhx, vow <?T«CT^OS), see Moreh, I, 72; I. T.

D

50 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

(c) sagacity and intellectual cleverness, which is the ability to
perceive quickly, and to grasp an idea without delay, or in a
very short time. The vices of this faculty are the antitheses
or the opposites of these virtues.

Moral virtues belong only to the appetitive faculty to which
that of sensation in this connection is merely subservient.1 The
virtues of this faculty are very numerous, being moderation, [i. e.
fear of sin], liberality, honesty, meekness, humility, contentedness,
[which the Rabbis call "wealth", when they say, "Who is truly
wealthy? He who is contented with his lot"2], courage, [faith-
fulness], and other virtues akin to these. The vices of this
faculty consist of a deficiency or of an exaggeration of these
qualities.

As regards the faculties of nutrition and imagination, it can-
not be said that they have vices or virtues, but that the nutri-
tive functions work properly or improperly; as, for instance,
when one says that a man's digestion is good or bad, or that
one's imagination is confused or clear. This does not mean,
however, that they have virtues or vices.

So much we wished to discuss in this chapter.

Glossary of Strange Words, sub voce (under D); Scheyer, ibid., pp. 17 — 19,
39—93; Munk, Guide, I, pp. 307—308, note; Rosin, Ethik, p. 57, n. 1;
Wolff, Acht Capitel, p. 11, n. 1; and idem, Miisa b. Maimtins eschatologische
Gedanken, p. 13, etc.

1 See Scheyer, ibid., pp. 104 — 105, and Rosin, ibid., p. 57, n. 4.

2 Abot, IV, 1.

THE ancients2 maintained that the soul, like the body, is
subject to good health and illness. The soul's healthful state is
due to its condition, and that of its faculties, by which it con-
stantly does what is right, and performs what is proper, while
the illness of the soul is occasioned by its condition, and that
of its faculties, which results in its constantly doing wrong,
and performing actions that are improper.3 The science of
medicine investigates the health of the body. Now, just as
those, who are physically ill, imagine that, on account of their
vitiated tastes, the sweet is bitter and the bitter is sweet — and
likewise fancy the wholesome to be unwholesome — and just as
their desire grows stronger, and their enjoyment increases for
such things as dust, coal, very acidic and sour foods, and the
like — which the healthy loathe and refuse, as they are not only
not beneficial even to the healthy, but possibly harmful — so
those whose souls are ill, that is the wicked and the morally
perverted, imagine that the bad is good, and that the good is
bad. The wicked man, moreover, continually longs for excesses
which are really pernicious, but which, on account of the illness
of his soul, he considers to be good.4 Likewise, just as when

i For a discussion of the contents of this chapter, see Jaraczewski,
ZPhKr., XL VI pp. 10—11; and Rosin, Ethik,p. 77 ff. A short summary
is contained in H. Deot, II, 1.

5 See Foreword, p. 35 n. 3.

3 Of. Pirke Mosheh, in Kobe?, II, 20b, WV D^lDl^sn 1BND »VT7i p nfffc ifi»
•y\ "Vim nwa vsti.

* Aristotle, in discussing Pleasures (Eth. Nic., X, 5), says, "Yet in the
case of human creatures they (pleasures) differ not a little; for the very
same things please some and pain others ; and what are painful and hateful

n*

62 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

people, unacquainted with the science of medicine, realize that
they are sick, and consult a physician, who tells them what they
must do, forbidding them to partake of that which they imagine
beneficial, and prescribing for them things which are unpleasant
and bitter, in order that their bodies may become healthy, and
that they may again choose the good and spurn the bad, so
those whose souls become ill should consult the sages, the moral
physicians, who will advise them against indulging in those evils
which they (the morally ill) think are good, so that they may
be healed by that art of which I shall speak in the next
chapter, and through which the moral qualities are restored to
their normal condition. But, if he who is morally sick be not
aware of his illness, imagining that he is well, or, being aware
of it, does not seek a remedy, his end will be similar to that
of one, who, suffering from bodily ailment, yet continuing to
indulge himself, neglects to be cured, and who in consequence
surely meets an untimely death.

Those who know that they are in a diseased state, but neverthe-
less yield to their inordinate passions, are described in the truthful
Law which quotes their own words, "Though I walk in the stubbor-
ness of my heart, in order that the indulgence of the passions may
appease the thirst for them." * This means that, intending to quench the

to some are pleasant to and liked by others. The same is the case with
sweet things; the same will not seem so to the man in a fever as to him
who is in health ; nor will the invalid and the person in robust health have
the same notion of warmth. The same is the case with other things also."
Cf., also, H. Deot, II, 1, "To those who are diseased the bitter tastes sweet
and the sweet bitter. Some sick people, moreover, crave and long for food
that is unfit to eat, such as dust and charcoal, spurning food that is bene-
ficial, such as bread and meat, according to the intensity of their illness.
Likewise, people whose souls are diseased desire and love evil character-
istics, and hate the moral path, being loathe to pursue it, since, on ac-
count of their illness, it is very difficult for them to do so. Thus, Isaiah
says of such people, '"Wo unto those that say of the evil it is good, and
of the good it is evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness,
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter' (V, 20). Concerning them
it is also said that '(they are those) who leave the path of uprightness to
walk in the ways of darkness' (Prov. II, 13)."
i Dt. XXIX, 18.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— III 53

thirst, it is, on the contrary, intensifed. He who is ignorant
of his illness is spoken of in many places by Solomon, who says,
"The way of the fool is straight in his own eyes, but he who
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise".1 This means that he who
listens to the counsel of the sage is wise, for the sage teaches
him the way that is actually right, and not the one that he
(the morally ill) erroneously considers to be such. Solomon
also says, "There is many a way which seemeth even before a
man; but its ends are ways unto death".2 Again, in regard to
these who are morally ill, in that they do not know what is
injurious from that which is beneficial, he says, "The way of the
wicked is like darkness; they do not know against what they
stumble." »

The art of healing the diseases of the soul will, however,
form the subject-matter of the fourth chapter.

i Prov. XII, 15. J Ibid., XIV, 12.

» Ibid., IV, 19. Cf. jff. Deot, II, 1, "What is the remedy for those whose
souls are diseased? Let them consult the sages who are the physicians
of the soul, who will cure their disease by teaching them those character-
istics by which they may return to the moral path, and recognize their
evil traits. Concerning those who do not seek the sages in order to be
cured, Solomon says, 'wisdom and instruction fools despise' (Prov. I, 7)".
The conception of a spiritual healing originated neither with Aristotle nor
with M. There are many biblical passages based on such a comparison
with the healing art, as Jer. Ill, 22 : D^niSltfD nEJiN ; Hos. XIV, 5 : nraitPfi «B1«
Ps. XLI, 5: ~\h TiNton "O "PBi n«an«, etc. Rosin, Ethik, p. 78, n. 4, refers to
similar passages in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic literature.

CHAPTER IV

CONCERNING THE CURE OF THE DISEASES OF THE SOUL t

GOOD deeds are such as are equibalanced,2 maintaining the
mean between two equally bad extremes, the too much and the

i To this chapter, in which the Aristotelian doctrine of the Mean
(Meffbrrp, balance) is applied to Jewish ethics, M. later supplemented
H. Deot, I, 1—7; II, 2, 3, 7; and III, 1. Cf. Eth. Nic. II, 5—9; III, 8—14;
IV. Although M. follows Aristotle in defining virtue as a state inter-
mediate between two extremes, the too little and the too much, he still
remains on Jewish ground, as there are biblical and Talmudical passages
expressing such a thought. Such passages are Prov. IV, 26, "Balance well
the track of thy foot, and let all thy ways be firmly right"; ibid., XXX, 8,
"Neither poverty nor riches give thou unto me"; Eccles. VII, 16, "Be not
righteous overmuch; neither show thyself overwise" (quoted in H. Deot,
III, 1) ; etc. In Moreh, I, 32, M. interprets "neither show thyself overwise"
and "To eat too much honey is not good" (Prov. XXV, 27) as a warning
against attempting to exceed the limits of one's intellectual powers, and
as an admonition to keep knowledge within bounds. In the Palestinian
Talmud (Hagigah, II, 77 a bot.), there is found an interesting passage which
sums up well the thought of this chapter, and it is curious that M. did
not refer to it. It reads, "The ways of the Torah may be likened to two
roads, on one of which fire and on the other snow is encountered. If one
go along one path, he will be burned to death, and if he proceed along
the other, he will perish in the snow. What, then, should one do? He
must go between the extremes." A similar passage is found in Tosefta
Hagigah 2 (cf. Yer. Hagigah, p. 20), "They make it incumbent upon man
to go between the extremes, and not to incline to this side or to that."
See, also, Sotah, 5 a, "he (the scholar) in whom there is pride deserves ex-
communication, and also he in whom there is no pride at all." For a
discussion of Aristotle's doctrine of the Meo^s, see Grant, The Ethics of
Aristotle, vol. I, pp. 251 — 262. For that of M., see Jaraczewski, ZPhKr,
XLVI, pp. 11 — 12; Rosin, Ethik, p. 26, n. 1; p. 79 ff.; Lazarus, Ethik, vol.
I, Abhang XIV (Eng. ed. vol. I, p. 273 f.); Wolff, Acht Capitel, Introd.,
pp. XIII — XIV; Yellin and Abrahams, Maimonides, pp. 78 — 83; Cohen,
Charakteristik, etc., in Moses ben Maimon, I, p. Ill ff. ; A. Lb'wenthal in
JE., II, p. 101; Lewis, in Aspects of the Hebrew Genius, (London, 1910)
pp. 82 — 83. On the mean in Jewish religious philosophy, see Rosin, Ethik,
pp. 10, 12, 14, 19, 24; H. Malter, JQR (new series) vol. I, p. 160, n. 15.

* BMttTJ, the equidistant (equivalent to the Aristotelian foov, the exactly

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 55

too little.1 Virtues are psychic conditions and dispositions which
are mid-way between two reprehensible extremes, one of which
is characterized by an exaggeration, the other by a deficiency.2
Good deeds are the product of these dispositions. To illustrate,
abstemiousness is a disposition which adopts a mid-course between
inordinate passion and total insensibility to pleasure. Abstem-
iousness, then, is a proper rule of conduct, and the psychic dis-
position which gives rise to it is an ethical quality ; but inordi-
nate passion, the extreme of excess, and total insensibility to
enjoyment, the extreme of deficiency3, are both absoluteley
pernicious. The psychic dispositions, from which these two
extremes, inordinate passion and insensibility, result — the one
being an exaggeration, the other a deficiency — are alike classed
among moral imperfections.

Likewise, liberality is the mean between sordidness and extra-
vagence; courage, between recklessness and cowardice; dignity,
between haughtiness and loutishness4; humility, between arrogance

equal, the normal, or equibalanced); cf. Moreh, II, 39, "It is clear, then,
that the Law is normal (rPWfi) in this sense; for it contains the words,
'Just statutes and judgments' (Deut. IV, 8); but 'just' is here identical
with 'equibalanced' (D^llW)."

i D'JttlO&n, the mean (Aristotelian ntvov). Nic. Eth., II, 6, "By an ob-
jective mean, I understand that which is equidistant from the two given
extremes, and which is one and the same to all, and by a mean relatively
to the person, I understand that which is neither too much nor too little."

8 Cf. ibid., "Virtue, then, is a disposition of the moral purpose in
relative balance, which is determined by a standard, according as the
thoughtful man would determine. It is a middle state between two faulty
ones, in the way of excess on one side, and defect on the other; and
it is so, moreover, because the faulty states on one side fall short of,
and those on the other side exceed, what is right, both in the case of the
emotions and the actions; but virtue finds, and, when found, adopts the
mean." Cf. JET. Deot, 1, 4, and II, 2.

s ]lt?ion nspn, is the extreme of excess (Aristotle's vweppo\fy, and rrcpn
pnKn the extreme of deficiency (ax«^w). Cf. H. Deot, I, 5; III, 1 ; pmnNl
'31 p nnw vfyi "i»i hw »bv n» |nn«n inb, where ynnNn ns clearly means the
extreme of the too little.

* See Hebrew text, c. IV, pp. 19—20, n. 17. On the gloss royiDtt nmni
'31, introduced here in some Mss. and edd., see Hebrew text, c. IV, p. 20,
note. This gloss seems to go back to Eth. Nic., II, 7, "He that is as he

56 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

and self-abasement; contentedness, between avarice and slothful
indifference; and magnificence, between meanness and profusion.
[Since definite terms do not exist in our language with, which to
express these latter qualities, it is necessary to explain their con-
tent, and tell what the philosophers meant by them. A man is
called magnificent whose whole intention is to do good to others
by personal service, by money, or advice, and with all his power,
but without meanwhile bringing suffering or disgrace upon himself.
That is the medium line of conduct. The mean man is one
who does not want others to succeed in anything, even though
he himself may not thereby suffer any loss, hardship, or injury.
That is the one extreme. The profuse man, on the contrary,
is one who willingly performs the above-mentioned deeds, in spite
of the fact that thereby he brings upon himself great injury,
or disgrace, terrible hardship, or considerable loss. That is the
other extreme.1] Gentleness is the mean between irascibility
and insensibility to shame and disgrace; and modesty, between
impudence and shamefacedness.2 [The explanation of these latter

should be may be called friendly, and his mean state friendliness ; he that
exceeds, if it be without any interested motive, somewhat too complaisant,
if with such motive, a flatterer; he that is deficient and in all instances
unpleasant, quarrelsome and cross."

1 The virtue which I. T. explains here, owing to the inadequacy of the
Hebrew terms, is the one which Aristotle calls magnificence (I. T.'s llto
21?). The excess is want of taste or wdgar profusion (xhr\ 21B ynn11), and
the defect paltriness (<"6i3n). See Eth. Nic., loc. cit. According to Aristotle,
magnificence is a higher kind of liberality (niTIJ), and consists of the
spending of money on a grand scale, with taste and propriety. It is
prompted by a desire for what is noble, concerning itself with the services
of religion, public works, and so forth. The vulgar man, whose object is
ostentation, offends with excessive splendor, while the mean man, on the
other hand, through timidity and constant fear of expense, even though
he does expend large amounts, mars the whole effect by some petty charac-
teristic of meanness (ibid., IV, 2). I. T. has, accordingly, incorrectly ex-
plained the terms 21B 2^, ntei, and S&Tl 21b ]nn».

2 See JET. Deot, I, and II for a list and discussion of the virtues.
Aristotle mentions and discussess the following virtues in Eth. Nic.; courage
(II, 7, and III, 6 — 9), perfected self-mastery or temperance (II, 7, and
III, 10—11), liberality (II, 7, and IV, 1), magnificence (II, 7 and IV, 2),
greatness of soul (II, 7, and IV, 3), love of honor (II, 7, and IV, 4),

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 57

terms, gleaned from the sayings of our sages (may their memory
be blessed!) seems to be this. In their opinion, a modest
man is one who is very bashful, and therefore modesty is the
mean. This we gather from their saying, "A shamefaced man
cannot learn".1 They also assert, "A modest man is worthy of
Paradise"2, but they do not say this of a shamefaced man.
Therefore, I have thus arranged them." 3] So it is with the other
qualities. One does not necessarily have to use conventional
terms for these qualities, if only the ideas are clearly fixed in
the mind.4

It often happens, however, that men err as regards these
qualities, imagining that one of the extremes is good, and is a
virtue. Sometimes, the extreme of the too much is considered
noble, as when temerity is made a virtue, and those who reck-
lessly risk their lives are hailed as heroes. Thus, when people
see a man, reckless to the highest degree, who runs deliberately
into danger, intentionally tempting death, and escaping only by
mere chance, they laud such a one to the skies, and say that he
is a hero. At other times, the opposite extreme, the too little, is
greatly esteemed, and the coward5 is considered a man of for-
bearance; the idler, as being a person of a contented disposition;
and he, who by the dullness of his nature is callous to every
joy, is praised as a man of moderation, [that is, one who eschews
sin]. In like manner, profuse liberality and extreme lavishness
are erroneously extolled as excellent characteristics.6 This is,
however, an absolutely mistaken view, for the really praiseworthy

gentleness (II, 7, and IV, 5), friendliness (II, 7, and IV, 6), truthfulness
(II, 7. and IV, 7), jocularity or liveliness (II, 7, and IV, 8), and modesty
(II, 7, and IV, 9). Of., also, Eudemian Ethics, II, 3, where a formal table
is given contaning fourteen virtues and their respective pairs of extremes;
and Mag. Mor. I, 20 «.

i Abot, II, 5. 2 Abot, V, 20. 3 See Hebrew text, c. IV, p. 21, n. 16.

4 Aristotle also mentions the paucity of terms to express the nice
distinctions he makes (Eth. Nic., II, 7).

s Better, "the apathetic" ; see Hebrew text, c. IV, p. 21, n. 27.

6 Cf. Eth. Nic., II, 9, "for we ourselves sometimes praise those who
are defective in this feeling (anger), and we call them gentle; at another,
we term the hot-tempered manly and spirited."

58 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

is the medium course of action to which every one should strive
to adhere, always weighing his conduct carefully, so that he may
attain the proper mean.

Know, moreover, that these moral excellences or defects
cannot be acquired, or implanted in the soul, except by means
of the frequent repetition of acts resulting from these qualities,
which, practised during a long period of time, accustoms us to
them.1 If these acts performed are good ones, then we shall
have gained a virtue; but if they are bad, we shall have ac-
quired a vice. Since, however, no man is born with an innate
virtue or vice, as we shall explain in Chapter VIII, and, as
every one's conduct from childhood up is undoubtedly influenced
by the manner of living of his relatives and countrymen,2 his
conduct may be in accord with the rules of moderation; but,
then again, it is possible that his acts may incline towards either
extreme, as we have demonstrated, in which case, his soul be-
comes diseased.3 In such a contingency, it is proper for him
to resort to a cure, exactly as he would were his body suffering
from an illness. So, just as when the equilibrium of the physical
health is disturbed,4 and we note which way it is tending in
order to force it to go in exactly the opposite direction until
it shall return to its proper condition, and, just as when the
proper adjustment is reached, we cease this operation, and have
recourse to that which will maintain the proper balance, in
exactly the same way must we adjust the moral equilibrium.5

1 Cf. Yoma, 86 b; Sotah, 22 a, "As soon as a man has committed a sin
and repeated it, it becomes to him a permitted act".

2 Cf. H. Deot, "VI, 1, "The natural disposition of the human mind
occasions man to be influenced in his opinions and actions by those with
whom he associates, and his conduct to be dependent on that of his friends
and countrymen".

3 On the acquisition of virtues and vices, see Eth. Nic., II, 1 — 3; and
H. Deot, I, 2, 7. See below c. VIII, p. 85ff.

4 Cf. Eth. Nic., II, 2, "for excessive training impairs the strength as
well as deficient; meat and drink, in like manner, in too great or too
small quantities, impair the health; while in due proportion they cause
increase, and preserve it".

5 Cf. H. Deot, II, 2. The same thought is expressed by Aristotle in
Eth. Nic., II, 9. If we find ourselves at one of the faulty extremes, we

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 59

Let us take, for example, the case of a man in whose soul there
has developed a disposition [of great avarice] on account of
which he deprives himself [of every comfort in life], and which,
by the way, is one of the most detestable of defects, and an im-
moral act, as we have shown in this chapter. If we wish to
cure this sick man, we must not command him merely [to prac-
tise] deeds of generosity, for that would be as ineffective as a
physician trying to cure a patient consumed by a burning fever
by administering mild medicines, which treatment would be in-
efficacious. We must, however, induce him to squander so often,
and to repeat his acts of profusion so continuously until that
propensity which was the cause of his avarice has totally dis-
appeared. Then, when he reaches that point where he is about
to become a squanderer, we must teach him to moderate his
profusion, and tell him to continue with deeds of generosity, and
to watch out with due care lest he relapse either into lavishness
or niggardliness.1

must drag ourselves away in the opposite direction, for by bending our-
selves a long way back from the erroneous extreme, allowing for the
recoil, as when one straightens a crooked piece of timber, we shall at
length arrive at the proper mean. Punishment of sin also, according to
M., forces the culprit to the other extreme of the sin committed. Thus,
if a man sin as regards property, he must spend his money liberally in
the service of God; if he has indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments, he
must chastise his body with fasting, privation, and the like. This practice
should even extend itself to man's intellectual failings, which may cause
him to believe some false doctrine, a fault that is to be remedied by
turning one's thoughts entirely away from wordly affairs, and devoting
them exclusively to intellectual exercises, and carefully reflecting upon
those beliefs in which he should have faith (Moreh, III, 46). Compare with
this Aristotle's theory as regards correction, according to which the
remedies are of such a nature as to be the contraries of the ills they
seek to cure (Eth. Nic., II, 2).

* Cf. H. Deot, II, 2, "How shall he cure them (the moral ills)? The
sages tell the wrathful man that if he is accustomed to scold and curse
he should train himself never to give vent to these feelings, and that he
should continue this course a long while, until he has eradicated wrath
from his heart. If he is haughty let him train himself to be humble, let
him clothe himself in ragged garments which humiliate those who wear
them, and let him do similar acts, until he has uprooted his pride, and

60 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

If, on the other hand, a man is a squanderer, he must be
directed to practise strict economy, and to repeat acts of niggard-
liness. It is not necessary, however, for him to perform acts of
avarice as many times as the mean man should those of pro-
fusion. This subtle point, which is a canon and secret of the
science of medicine, tells us that it is easier for a man of profuse
habits to moderate them to generosity, than it is for a miser to
become generous. Likewise, it is easier for one who is apathetic
[and eschews sin] to be excited to moderate enjoyment, than it
is for one, burning with passion, to curb his desires. Consequently,
the licentious man must be made to practise restraint more than
the apathetic man should be induced to indulge his passions;
and, similarly, the coward requires exposure to danger more
frequently than the reckless man should be forced to cowardice.
The mean man needs to practise lavishness to a greater degree
than should be required of the lavish to practise meanness.
This is a fundamental principle of the science of curing moral
ills, and is worthy of remembrance.

On this account, the saintly ones1 were not accustomed
to cause their dispositions to maintain an exact balance
between the two extremes, but deviated somewhat, by way
of [caution and] restraint, now to the side of exaggeration,
and now to that of deficiency. Thus, for instance, ab-
stinence would incline to some degree towards excessive
denial of all pleasures; valor would approach somewhat towards
temerity; generosity to lavishness; modesty to extreme humility,2

returned to the middle course which is the moral one; and, when he has
done so, let him continue in it all his days. He should act in a similar
way with all his characteristics. If he is far from the middle course, at
one extreme, let him force himself to go to the other, and accustom him-
self fully to it, until he returns to the proper course, which is the medial
trait as regards each characteristic".

1 See infra, c. VI; and M.'s Commentary on Abot, V, 7. 11.

3 M. departs from strict adherence to the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean,
which Aristotle himself does, at times, and especially as regards the virtue
of justice. M. states here that the deviation from the mean on the part
of the saints was because of caution and restraint. Later, in H. Deot,
I, 5, he expands this thought in drawing a distinction between the wise

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 61

and so forth. This is what the rabbis hinted at, in their

man (D2n) and the saint (Ton). Wise men cling to the exact middle
course, but "the early saints were accustomed to deviate in their charac-
teristics from the middle course towards either one or the other extreme,
now making one characteristic tend towards the extreme of deficiency,
and now another towards that of excess. This is doing 'more than the
strict letter of the law demands'." In regard to the two characteristics,
pride and anger, M. states, in some instances , the Aristotelian view which
considers the medium course the virtue, only to depart from it at other
times, and, following the Bible and Talmud, considers the extreme the
virtue. Thus, in this chapter, pride (niNJ) is the one extreme, self-abasement
(nnn mbsv) the other, and humility (71129), the mean, is the virtue; anger
(Djn) is the excess, insensibility to shame and disgrace (nB"in 711W171 YWTT
mi) the deficiency, and mildness (nii^2D), the mean, is the virtue. In
H. Deot, I, 4, the medium course (Si13s2), likewise, in respect to anger, is
designated as the virtue. Man should not be insensible to anger (nOD «bl
B^ilD 1VN»), although he should give vent to his wrath only at great pro-
vocation (hli in hs «b« DIW *6). In his Commentary on Abot, IV, 4
(Rawicz, Commentar^ pp. 78 — 80), and in H. Deot, II, 3, M. asserts, how-
ever, that excessive humility and complete absence of anger are the virtues,
and not the medium course. The passage in Deot is as follows, "There
are, however, some dispositions in regard to which it is wrong to pursue
even a middle course, but the contrary extreme is to be embraced, as, for
instance, in respect to pride. One does not follow the proper path by
merely being humble. Man should be very humble and extremely meek.
To this end, Scripture says of Moses, our master, that he was 'very
humble' (Num. XII, 3), and not that he was simply humble. Therefore, the
sages command us, 'Be thou very humble' (Abot, IV, 4), and say, further-
more, that all who are proud-hearted deny an important principle of our
faith, for Scripture says, 'Thy heart will become uplifted, and thou wilt
forget the Lord thy God' (Deut. VIII, 14), and they also say, 'he who is
presumptuous, even to a slight degree deserves excommunication'. In like
manner, anger is a very bad characteristic; one should go to the opposite
extreme and school himself to be without wrath, even as regards a matter

at which it might seem proper to show anger The Rabbis of old said,

'Whoever allows himself to be carried away by his wrath is like a wor-
shipper of idols' (Nedarim, 22&). Futhermore, they said, 'If a wise man
becomes angry, his wisdom forsakes him; if a prophet, his inspiration departs
from him' (Pesahim, 66 b), and, 'Those that abandon themselves to their
angry passions do not deserve to live' (Pesahim 113 b). Therefore, they
recommend total absence of anger, so that a man may thus train himself
never to feel it, even at those things which naturally would provoke one
to wrath. The proper course to pursue, and the way of the righteous, is
that 'they are insulted, but do not insult; they hear themselves reviled, and

62 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

saying, "Do more than the strict letter of the law
demands." *

"When, at times, some of the pious ones deviated to one
extreme by fasting, keeping nightly vigils 2, refraining from eating
meat or drinking wine, renouncing sexual intercourse, clothing
themselves in woolen and hairy garments, dwelling in the moun-
tains, and wandering about in the wilderness, they did so, partly
as a means of restoring the health of their souls, as we have
explained above, and partly because of the immorality of the
towns-people.3 When the pious saw that they themselves
might become contaminated by association with evil men, or by
constantly seeing their actions, fearing that their own morals
might become corrupt on account of contact with them, they
fled to the wildernesses far from their society, as the prophet
Jeremiah said, "Oh that some one would grant me in the wilder-
ness the dwelling of a wanderer, and I would quit my people
and abandon them; for they are all adulterers, a troop of faith-
less evil-doers."4 When the ignorant observed saintly men
acting thus, not knowing their motives, they considered their
deeds of themselves virtuous, and so, blindly imitating their acts,
thinking thereby to become like them, chastised their bodies
with all kinds of afflictions, imagining that they had acquired
perfection and moral worth, and that by this means man would
approach nearer to God, as if He hated the human body, and
desired its destruction. It never dawned upon them, however,
that these actions were bad and resulted in moral imperfection
of the soul. Such men can only be compared to one who,
ignorant of the art of healing, when he sees skilful physicians
administering to those at the point of death [purgatives known

answer not; they do good from pure motives of love; they rejoice amidst
their sufferings, and of them it is said, 'Those that love him are like the
sun going forth in its might' (Judges V, 31, Shabbat, 38b)". See Rosin,
Ethih, p. 87, n. 5; Cohen, Charakteristik, in Moses ben Maimon, I, pp. 112 — 116.
See, however, supra, p. 54, note 1, for biblical and Talmudical passages
which support the doctrine of the medium course.

1 Baba Me?ia, 35 a: fin mwfi D'JB1? it muni larri

2 To study Torah.

3 Cf. H. Deot, VI, 1, and H. Nedarim, XIII, 23.
1 Jer. IX, 1.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 63

in Arabic as] colocynth, scammony, aloe, and the like, and
depriving them of food, in consequence of which they are com-
pletely cured and escape death, foolishly concludes that since
these things cure sickness, they must be all the more efficacious
in preserving the health, or prolonging life. If a person should
take these things constantly, and treat himself as a sick person,
then he would really become ill. Likewise, those who are
spiritually well, but have recourse to remedies, will undoubtedly
become morally ill.

The perfect Law which leads us to perfection — as one who
knew it well testifies by the words, "The Law of the Lord is
perfect restoring the soul; the testimonies of the Lord are faithful
making wise the simple"1 — recommends none of these things
(such as self-torture, flight from society etc.). On the contrary,
it aims at man's following the path of moderation, in accordance
with the dictates of nature, eating, drinking, enjoying legitimate
sexual intercourse, all in moderation, and living among people
in honesty and uprightness, but not dwelling in the wilderness
or in the mountains, or clothing oneself in garments of hair and
wool, or afflicting the body. The Law even warns us against
these practices, if we interpret it according to what tradition tells
us is the meaning of the passage concerning the Nazarite, "And
he (the priest) shall make an atonement for him because he hath
sinned against the soul." 2 The Rabbis ask, "Against what soul
has he sinned? Against his own soul, because he has deprived
himself of wine. Is this not then a conclusion a minori ad ma-
jus? If one who deprives himself merely of wine must bring
an atonement, how much more incumbent is it upon one who
denies himself every enjoyment."3

By the words of our prophets and of the sages of our Law,
we see that they were bent upon moderation and the care of
their souls and bodies, in accordance with what the Law pre-
scribes and with the answer which God gave through His

1 Ps. XIX, 9.

2 Num. VI, 11.

3 Nazir, 19a, 22a; Ta'anit, lla; Baba Eamma, 91b; Nedarim, lOa; cf.
M.'s Commentary on Abot, V, 15.

64 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

prophet to those who asked whether the fast-day once a year
should continue or not. They asked Zechariah, "Shall I weep
in the fifth month with abstinence as I have done already these
many years?" l His, answer was, "When ye fasted and mourned
in the fifth and in the seventh (month) already these seventy
years, did ye in anywise fast for me, yea for me? And if ye
do eat and if ye do drink are ye not yourselves those that eat
and yourselves those that drink?"2 After that, he enjoined
upon them justice and virtue alone, and not fasting, when he
said to them, "Thus hath said the Lord of Hosts. Execute
justice and show kindness and mercy every man to his brother." 3
He said further, "Thus hath said the Lord of Hosts, the fast-
day of the fourth, and the fast-day of the fifth, and the fast of
seventh, and the fast of the tenth (month) shall become to the
house of Judah gladness, and joy, and merry festivals; only love
ye truth and peace."4. Know that by "truth" the intellectual
virtues are meant, for they are immutably true, as we have ex-
plained in Chapter II, and that by "peace" the moral virtues
are designated, for upon them depends the peace of the world.
But to resume. Should those of our co-religionists — and it
is of them alone that I speak — who imitate the followers of
other religions, maintain that when they torment their bodies,
and renounce every joy, that they do so merely to discipline the
faculties of their souls by inclining somewhat to the one ex-
treme, as is proper, and in accordance with our own recommen-
dations in this chapter, our answer is that they are in error,
as I shall now demonstrate. The Law did not lay down its
prohibitions, or enjoin its commandments, except for just this
purpose, namely, that by its disciplinary effects we may per-
sistently maintain the proper distance from either extreme. For,
the restrictions regarding all the forbidden foods, the prohibitions
of illicit intercourse, the fore-warning against prostitution, the
duty of performing the legal marriage-rites — which, nevertheless,
does not permit intercourse at all times, as, for instance, during
the period of menstruation, and after child-birth, besides its

' Zech. VII, 3. 2 jWd., VII, 6. 3 iud., VII, 9.

« Ibid., VIII, 9.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 65

being otherwise restricted by our sages, and entirely interdicted
during the daytime, as we have explained in the Tractate San-
hedrin — all of these God commanded in order that we should
keep entirely distant from the extreme of the inordinate in-
dulgence of the passions, and, even departing from the exact
medium, should incline somewhat towards self-denial, so that
there may be firmly rooted in our souls the disposition for
moderation.1

Likewise, all that is contained in the Law concerning the
giving of tithes, the gleaning of the harvest, the forgotten
sheaves, the single grapes, and the small bunches in the vine-
yards for the poor, the law of the Sabbatical year, and of the
Jubilee, the giving of charity according to the wants of the
needy one, all these approach the extreme of lavishness to be
practised in order that we may depart far from its opposite,
stinginess, and thus, nearing the extreme of excessive prodigality,
there may become instilled in us the quality of generosity.2 If you
should test most of the commandments from this point of view,
you would find that they are all for the discipline and guidance
of the faculties of the soul. Thus, the Law forbids revenge,
the bearing of a grudge, and blood-revenge by saying, "Thou
shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge";3 "thou shalt surely
unload with him"4 (the ass of him who hates you); "thou shalt
surely help him to lift them up again"5 (thy brother's ass or
ox which has fallen by the way). These commandments are
intended to weaken the force of wrath or anger. Likewise, the
command, "Thou shalt surely bring them back"6 (thy brother's
ox or lamb which has gone astray), is meant to remove the
disposition of avarice. Similarly, "Before the hoary head shalt
thou rise up, and honor the face of the old man", 7 "Honor thy
father and thy mother"8 etc., "thou shalt not depart from the
sentence which they may tell thee"9 etc., are intended to do
away with boldness, and to produce modesty. Then, in order
to keep away from the other extreme, i. e. of excessive bashful-

i Of. Moreh, III, 35, and H. Deot, III. 2 Cf. Moreh, III, 39. 3 Lev.
XIX, 18. 4 Ex. XXIII, 5. s Deut. XXII, 4. e jjy., XXII, 1.

7 Lev. XIX, 32. » Ex. XX, 12. » Deut. XVII, 11.

E

66 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

ness, we are told, "Thou shalt indeed rebuke thy neighbor" etc.,1
"thou shalt not fear him"2 (the false prophet) etc., so that ex-
cessive bashfulness, too, should disappear, in order that we pursue
the medium course. Should, however, anyone — who would with-
out doubt be foolish if he did so — try to enforce these commands
with additional rigor, as, for instance, by prohibiting eating and
drinking more than does the Law, or by restricting connubial
intercourse to a greater degree, or by distributing all of his
money among the poor, or using it for sacred purposes more
freely than the Law requires, or by spending it entirely upon
sacred objects and upon the sanctuary, he would indeed be
performing improper acts, and would be unconsciously going to
either one or the other extreme, thus forsaking completely the
proper mean. In this connection, I have nerver heard a more
remarkable saying than that of the Rabbis, found in the
Palestinian foUmuA, in the ninth chapter of the treatise Nedarim,
where they greatly blame those who bind themselves by oaths
and vows, in consequence of which they are fettered like prisoners.
The exact words they use are, "Said Rabbi Iddai, in the name
of Rabbi Isaac, 'Dost thou not think that what the Law pro-
hibits is sufficient for thee that thou must take upon thyself
additional prohibitions?' " 3

From all that we have stated in this chapter, it is evident
that it is man's duty to aim at performing acts that observe
the proper mean, and not to desist from them by going to one
extreme or the other, except for the restoration of the soul's
health by having recourse to the opposite of that from which
the soul is suffering. So, just as he who, acquainted with the
science of medicine, upon noting the least sign of a change for
the worse in his health, does not remain indifferent to it, but
prevents the sickness from increasing to a degree that will re-
quire recourse to violent remedies, and just as when a man,
feeling that one of his limbs has become affected, carefully nurses
it, refraining from things that are injurious to it, and applying
every remedy that will restore it to its healthy condition, or at

« Lev. XIX, 17. * Deut. XVIII, 22. 3 Yer. Nedarim, IX, 1;

ed. Krotoschin, 41 b:

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— IV 67

least keep it from getting worse, likewise, the moral man will
constantly examine his characteristics, weigh his deeds, and daily
investigate his psychic condition; and if, at any time, he finds
his soul deviating to one extreme or another, he will immediately
hasten to apply the proper remedy, and not suffer an evil
aptitude to acquire strength, as we have shown, by a constant
repetition of that evil action which it occasioned. He is, like-
wise, bound to be mindful of his defects, and constantly to endeavor
to remedy them, as we have said above, for it is impossible for
any man to be free from all faults.1 Philosophers tell us
that it is most difficult and rare to find a man who, by his
nature, is endowed with every perfection, moral as well as
mental.2 This thought is expressed often in the prophetical
books, as, "Behold in his servants he putteth no trust, and his
angels he chargeth with folly",3 "How can man be justified
with God? or how can be pure one that is born of woman?"4,
and Solomon says of mankind in general, "For no man is so
righteous upon earth that he should do always good, and never sin".5
Thou knowest, also, that God said to our teacher Moses,
the master of former and later ages, "Because ye have not
confided in me, to sanctity me" 6, "because ye rebelled against
my order at the waters of Meribah"7, "because ye did not
sanctify me".s All this (God said) although the sin of Moses
consisted merely in that he departed from the moral mean of
patience to the extreme of wrath in so far as he exclaimed,
"Hear now ye rebels"9 etc., yet for this God found fault with
him that such a man as he should show anger in the presence
of the entire community of Israel, where wrath is unbecoming.
This was a profanation of God's name, because men imitated
the words and conduct of Moses, hoping thereby to attain
temporal and eternal happiness. How could he, then, allow his
wrath free play, since it is a pernicious characteristic, arising,
as we have shown, from an evil psychic condition? The divine

1 Cf. Moreh, III, 36.

2 Cf. M.'s Commentary on Abot, V, 14 (Rawicz, Commentar, p. 100).
See Eth. Nic., VII, 1, "it is a rare thing for a man to be godlike".

3 Job IV, 18. * Ibid., XXV, 4. * Eccl. VII, 20. • Num. XX, 12.
i Ibid., XX, 24. s Deut. XXXII, 51. 9 Num. XX, 10.

68 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

words, ,,Ye (Israel) have rebelled against me" are, however, to
be explained as follows. Moses was not speaking to ignorant
and vicious people, but to an assembly, the most insignificant
of whose women, as the sages put it, were on a plane with
Ezekiel, the son of Buzi.1 So, when Moses said or did any-
thing, they subjected his words or actions to the most searching
examination.2 Therefore, when they saw that he waxed wrath-
ful, they said, "He has no moral imperfection, and did he not
know that God is angry with us for demanding water, and that
we have stirred up the wrath of God, he would not have been
angry with us". However, we do not find that when God spoke
to Moses about this matter He was angry, but on the contrary,
said, "Take the staff . . . and give drink to the congregation
and their cattle".3

We have, indeed, digressed from the subject of this chapter,
but have, I hope, satisfactorily solved one of the most difficult
passages of Scripture concerning which there has been much
arguing in the attempt to state exactly what the sin was which
Moses committed. Let what others have said be compared
with our opinion, and the truth will surely prevail.

Now, let me return to my subject. If a man will always
carefully discriminate as regards his actions, directing them to
the medium course, he will reach the highest degree of per-
fection possible to a human being, thereby approaching God,4
and sharing in His happiness. This is the most acceptable way
of serving God which the sages, too, had in mind when they
wrote the words, "He who ordereth his course aright is worthy
of seeing the salvation of God, as it is said, 'to him that ordereth
his course aright will I show, will I show the salvation of
God!'5 Do not read wesam but wesJiam derek".6 Shumah
means "weighing" ajid "valuation". This is exactly the idea
which we have explained in this chapter.

This is all we think necessary to be said on this subject.

1 Mekilta to r6»3 (Ex. XV, 2). 2 See Moreh, I, 4, on the inter-

pretation of Ex. XXIII, 8. 3 Num. XX, 8.

4 See below, c. VII, n. 5 a. On nearness to God (nimpnn), see Cohen,
Charakteristik, etc., in Moses b. Maimon, vol. I, pp. 106, and 124.

* Ps. L, 23. e Sotah, 5b; Mo'ed Katan, 5a.

OHAPTEE V

CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF MAN'S PSYCHIC
FACULTIES TOWARDS THE ATTAINMENT OF A SINGLE GOAL i

As we have explained in the preceding chapter, it is the
duty of man to subordinate all the faculties of his soul to his
reason. He must keep his mind's eye fixed constantly upon
one goal, namely, the attainment of the knowledge of God2
(may He be blessed!), as far as it is possible for mortal man
to know Him. Consequently, one must so adjust all his actions,
his whole conduct, and even his very words, that they lead to
this goal, in order that none of his deeds be aimless, and thus
retard the attainment of that end. So, his only design in
eating, drinking, cohabiting, sleeping, waking, moving about,
and resting should be the preservation of bodily health, while,
in turn, the reason for the latter is that the soul and its
agencies may be in sound and perfect condition, so that he
may readily acquire wisdom, and gain moral and intellectual
virtues, all to the end that man may reach the highest goal
of his endeavors.

Accordingly, man will not direct his attention merely to
obtain bodily enjoyment, choosing of food and drink and the
other things of life only the agreeable, but he will seek out
the most useful, being indifferent whether it be agreeable or
not. There are, indeed, times when the agreeable may be

1 For a discussion of the contents of this chapter, see Jaraczewski,
ZPhKr, XL VI, pp. 2—13, and Rosin, Ethik, p. 105 S.

2 Cf. Ibn Baud, Emunah Eamah, III, and Moreh, III, 51. See I. Fried-
laender, Der Stil des Maimonides, in Moses b. Maimon, I, p. 430.

70 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

used from a curative point of view, as, for instance, when
one suffers from loss of appetite, it may be stirred up by highly
seasoned delicacies and agreeable, palatable food. Similarly,
one who suffers from melancholia may rid himself of it by
listening to singing and all kinds of instrumental music, by
strolling through beautiful gardens and splendid buildings, by
gazing upon beautiful pictures, and other things that enliven
the mind, and dissipate gloomy moods. The purpose of all this
is to restore the healthful condition of the body, but the real
object in maintaining the body in good health is to acquire
wisdom. Likewise, in the pursuit of wealth, the main design
in its acquisition should be to expend it for noble purposes,
and to employ it for the maintenance of the body and the pre-
servation of life, so that its owner may obtain a knowledge of
G-od, in so far as that is vouchsafed unto man.

From this point of view, the study of medicine has a very
great influence upon the acquisition of the virtues and of the
knowledge of God, as well as upon the attainment of true,
spiritual happiness. Therefore, its study and acquisition are
pre-eminently important religious activities, and must not be
ranked in the same class with the art of weaving, or the science
of architecture, for by it one learns to weigh one's deeds, and
thereby human activities are rendered true virtues. The man
who insists upon indulging in savory, sweetsmelling and palat-
able food — although it be injurious, and possibly may lead to
serious illness or sudden death— ought, in my opinion, to be
classed with the beasts. His conduct is not that of a man in
so far as he is a being endowed with understanding, but it is
rather the action of a man in so far as he is a member of the
animal kingdom, and so "he is like the beasts who perish".1
Man acts like a human being only when he eats that which
is wholesome, at times avoiding the agreeable, and partaking of
the disagreeable in his search for the beneficial. Such conduct
is in accordance with the dictates of reason, and by these acts
man is distinguished from all other beings. Similarly, if a man
satisfy his sexual passions whenever he has the desire, regardless

i Ps. XLIX, 13.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— V 71

of good or ill effects, he acts as a brute, and not as a
man.1

It is possible, however, for one to shape one's conduct entirely
from the point of view of utility, as we have stated, with no
aim beyond that of maintaining the health of the body, or
guarding against disease. Such a one does not deserve to be
called virtuous, for, just as he strives for the enjoyment of good
health, another like him may have as his aim the gratification
of eating, or of sexual intercourse, none of which actions leads
towards the true goal. The real duty of man is, that in adopting
whatever measures he may for his well-being and the pre-
servation of his existence in good health, he should do so with
the object of maintaining a perfect condition of the instruments
of the soul, which are the limbs of the body, so that his soul
may be unhampered, and he may busy himself in acquiring the
moral and mental virtues. So it is with all the sciences and
knowledge man may learn. Concerning those which lead directly
to this goal, there is naturally no question; but such subjects
as mathematics, the study of conic sections,2 mechanics, the
various problems of geometry,3 hydraulics, and many others of
a similar nature, which do not tend directly towards that goal,
should be studied for the purpose of sharpening the mind, and
training the mental faculties by scientific investigations, so that
man may acquire intellectual ability to distinguish demonstra-
tive proofs from others, whereby he will be enabled to com-
prehend the essence of God. Similarly, in regard to man's
conversation, he should speak only of those things that will be
conducive to the true welfare of his soul and body, or that
will tend to avert injury from them, whether his words concern
themselves with science, or virtue, or praise of virtue or of a
virtuous man, or with censure of vice or of a vicious person; for
to express contempt for those who are loaded with vice, or to

i Cf. H. Deot, III, 2, and Moreh, III. 8, "Those who desire to be men
in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance and shape of men,
must constantly endeavor to reduce the wants of the body, such as eating,
cohabiting, drinking, anger, and all vices originating in lust and passion."

' See Wolff, Acht Capitel, p. 38, n. 1.

3 See Sachs, Beitrage, vol. II, p. 78; and Rawicz, Commentar, p. 22.

72 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

depict their deeds as contemptible — if done for the purpose of
disparaging them in the eyes of other men who may avoid
them, and not do as they do — is indeed a virtuous duty.
Does not Scripture say, "After the doings of the land of

Egypt ye shall not do, and after the doings

of the land of Canaan"?1 Also, the story of the Sodomites
and all the passages occuring in Scripture, which censure those
laden with vice, and represent their doings as disgraceful, and
those passages which praise and hold the good in high esteem,
endeavor, as I have said, to induce man to follow the paths
of the righteous, and to shun the way of the wicked.

If man has this as his ideal, he will dispense with many of
his customary deeds, and refrain from a great deal of ordinary
conversation.2 He who follows this line of conduct will not
trouble himself with adorning his walls with golden ornaments,
nor with decorating his garments with golden fringe, unless it be
for the purpose of enlivening his soul, and thus restoring it to
health, or of banishing sickness from it, so that it shall become
clear and pure, and thus be in the proper condition to acquire
wisdom. Therefore, our Rabbis of blessed memory say, "It is
becoming that a sage should have a pleasant dwelling, a beauti-
ful wife, and domestic comfort";3 for one becomes weary, and
one's mind dulled by continued mental concentration upon difficult
problems. Thus, just as the body becomes exhausted from hard
labor, and then by rest and refreshment recovers, so is it
necessary for the mind to have relaxation by gazing upon
pictures and other beautiful objects, that its weariness may be
dispelled. Accordingly, it is related that when the Rabbis be-
came exhausted from study, they were accustomed to engage in
entertaining conversation 4 (in order to refresh themselves). From
this point of view, therefore, the use of pictures and embroideries
for beautifying the house, the furniture, and the clothes is not
to be considered immoral nor unnecessary.

Know that to live according to this standard is to arrive at

i Lev. XVIII, 3. » See S. Deot, II, 4, and 5, for a further

discussion of this subject. 3 Sh.abbat, 25b.

4 Cf. ibid., 30b : (3i Nfiuvm «n^tt io« pnl? irb nnsn '»p» mm «n ^.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— V 73

a very high degree of perfection, which, in consequence of the
difficulty of attainment, only a few, after long and continuous
perseverance on the paths of virtue, have succeeded in reaching.
If there be found a man who has accomplished this — that is
one who exerts all the faculties of his soul, and directs them
towards the sole ideal of comprehending God, using all his
powers of mind and body, be they great or small, for the at-
tainment of that which leads directly or indirectly to virtue — I
would place him in a rank not lower than that of the prophets.
Such a man, before he does a single act or deed, considers and
reflects whether or not it will bring him to that goal, and if it
will, then, and then only, does he do it.

Such striving does the Almighty require of us, according to
the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might",1 that is, with all
the faculties of thy soul, each faculty having as its sole ideal the
love of God.2 The prophets, similarly, urge us on in saying, "In
all thy ways know Him",3 in commenting upon which the sages
said, "even as regards a transgression (of the ritual or cere-
monial law),"4 meaning thereby that thou shouldst set for every
action a goal, namely, the truth, even though it be, from a
certain point of view, a transgression.5 The sages of blessed
memory, too, have summed up this idea in so feAv words and

« Deut. YI, 5.

2 Cf. Moreh, I, 39 (end) which refers to this passage in the Perakim,
and to the Mishneh Torah (Yesode ha-Torah, II, 2).

3 Prov. Ill, 6.

4 BeraJcot, 63a. This does not imply that the end justifies the means;
that crime may be committed to bring about religious or charitable ends.
It refers only to the violation of the ceremonial or ritual laws, as the
breaking of the Sabbath, and eating on Yom Kippur, for the sake of saving
life, etc. Cf. Ketubot, 5 a, "You must remove debris to save a life on the
Sabbath" ; and Shabbat, 30 b, ''Better to extinguish the light on the Sabbath
than to extinguish life, which is God's light", etc. The distinction in
regard to the various kinds of transgressions which M. makes below,
Chapter VI, pp. 76—78, applies here. See Shemonah Perakim, ed. Wolf,
1876, p. 53, n. 5.

s Cf. M.'s Commentary on Berakot, IX, 5: 3Wn -W3 *p!r MBD pa!? ^33
jnn 12P31. Cf. also his Commentary on Abot, V, 20 (Rawicz, Commentar,
p. 108), and Moreh, III, 22 (end).

74 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONTDES

so concisely, at the same time elucidating the whole matter
with such complete thoroughness, that when one considers the
brevity with which they expressed this great and mighty thought
in its entirety, about which others have written whole books
and yet without adequately explaining it, one truly recognizes
that the Rabbis undoubtedly spoke through divine inspiration.
This saying is found among their precepts (in this tractate),
and is, "Let all thy deeds be done for the sake of God".1

This, then, is the thought we have been dwelling upon in
the present chapter, and what we have said must be considered
sufficient for the needs of this introduction.2
t

1 Abot, II, 12.

2 That is, the Shemonah Perdkim, which constitute M.'s introduction to
his Commentary on Abot. See Introduction, p. 5.

H. Deot, III, 3 contains a summary of the contents of the latter part
of this chapter.

CHAPTER VI

CONCERNING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SAINTLY [OR

HIGHLY ETHICAL] MAN AND HIM WHO [SUBDUES HIS

PASSIONS AND] HAS SELF-RESTRAINT 1

PHILOSOPHERS maintain that though the man of self-restraint
performs moral and praiseworthy deeds, yet he does them desir-
ing and craving all the while for immoral deeds, but, subduing
his passions and actively fighting against a longing to do those
things to which his faculties, his desires, and his psychic dis-
position excite him, succeeds, though with constant vexation
and irritation, in acting morally. The saintly man, however,
is guided in his actions by that to which his inclination and
disposition prompt him, in consequence of which he acts morally
from innate longing and desire. Philosophers unanimously agree
that the latter is superior to, and more perfect than, the one
who has to curb his passions, although they add that it is
possible for such a one to equal the saintly man in many
regards. In general, however, he must necessarily be ranked
lower in the scale of virtue, because there lurks within him
the desire to do evil, and, though he does not do it, yet be-
cause his inclinations are all in that direction, it denotes the
presence of an immoral psychic disposition. Solomon, also,
entertained the same idea when he said, "The soul of the
wicked desireth evil",2 and, in regard to the saintly man's re-
joicing in doing good, and the discontent experienced by him,

1 On the contents of this chapter, see Jaraczewski, ZPhKr, XLVI,
pp. 13 — 14, and Rosin, Ethik, p. 92ff. See Schechter, Some Aspects of
Rabbinic Theology, p. 201 if., on Hasidut (Saintliness). Cf. Eth., Nic., VII,
on Self-control.

» Prov. XXI, 10.

76 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

who is not innately righteous, when required to act justly, he
says, "It is bliss to the righteous to do justice, but torment to
the evil-doer".1 This is manifestly an agreement between Scrip-
ture and philosophy.

When, however, we consult the Rabbis on this subject, it
would seem that they consider him who desires iniquity, and
craves for it (but does not do it), more praiseworthy and perfect
than the one who feels no torment at refraining from evil; and
they even go so far as to maintain that the more praiseworthy
and perfect a man is, the greater is his desire to commit iniquity,
and the more irritation does he feel at having to desist from
it. This they express by saying, "Whosoever is greater than
his neighbor has likewise greater evil inclinations".2 Again,
as if this were not sufficient, they even go so far as to say
that the reward of him who overcomes his evil inclination is
commensurate with the torture occasioned by his resistance,
which thought they express by the words, "According to the
labor is the reward".3 Furthermore, they command that man
should conquer his desires, but they forbid one to say, "I, by
my nature, do not desire to commit such and such a trans-
gression, even though the Law does not forbid it". Rabbi
Simeon ben Gamaliel summed up this thought in the words,
"Man should not say, 'I do not want to eat meat together
with milk; I do not want to wear clothes made of a mixture
of wool and linen; I do not want to enter into an incestuous
marriage', but he should say, 'I do indeed want to, yet I must
not, for my father in Heaven has forbidden it'".4

At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings
of the philosophers and the Rabbis, one might be inclined to
say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not
the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagree-
ment in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such —
and of which they say that he who has no longing for them
is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers

1 Prov. XXI, 15. 2 Siikkah, 52a. See Lazarus, Ethics, II, pp. 106—107.
3 Abot, V, 23.

* Sifra to Lev. XX, 26, and Midrash Yalkut to Wayikra, 226, although
referred to as the words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VI , 77

his passion — are things which all people commonly agree are
evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury
to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents,
and the like. The prescriptions against these are called com-
mandments (HlSfi), about which the Rabbis said, "If they had
not already been written in the Law, it would be proper to
add them".1 Some of our later sages, who were infected with
the unsound principles of the Mutakallimun, 2 called these rational
laws.3 There is no doubt that a soul which has the desire for,
and lusts after, the above-mentioned misdeeds, is imperfect, that
a noble soul has absolutely no desire for any such crimes, and
experiences no struggle in refraining from them. When, how-
ever, the Rabbis maintain that he who overcomes his desire
has more merit and a greater reward (than he who has no
temptation), they say so only in reference to laws that are
ceremonial prohibitions. This is quite true, since, were it not
for the Law, they would not at all be considered transgressions.
Therefore, the Rabbis say that man should permit his soul to
entertain the natural inclination for these things, but that the
Law alone should restrain him from them. Ponder over the
wisdom of these men of blessed memory manifest in the examples
they adduce. They do not declare, "Man should not say, 'I
have no desire to kill, to steal and to lie, but I have a desire
for these things, yet what can I do, since my Father in heaven
forbids it!'" The instances they cite are all from the cere-
monial law, such as partaking of meat and milk together, wear-
ing clothes made of wool and linen, and entering into con-

1 Yoma, 67 b. See infra, p. 78, n. 2.

2 See supra, p. 41, and n. 2; infra, p. 90.

3 M. refers especially to Saadia who, in Emunot we-De'ot, III, 2,
divides the divine commandments into rational (ni^3tf mSD), and revealed
laws (nwo» niXB). See Scheyer, PsychoL Syst. d. Maim., pp. 24 and
106; Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 503; Rosin, Ethik, p. 93, n. 5;
Schreiner, Der Kalam, etc., pp. 13-14; Wolff, Acht Capitel, p. 45, n. 1; Gold-
ziher, Kitab ma'am al-Nafs, Berlin 1907, p. 22* f., and text p. 17, n. 6; and
Cohen, Charakteristik, etc., in Moses ben Maimon, I, p. 77 ff. M. refers
also to Saadia in Moreh, I, 71 : ,D"«1pn ^t*0 ,tnit«n rttp^> p»n ntfi nbjrotf 71D1
D^NPBtsrn |D Dnynsn p ninp1? D^JP on. See Munk, Guide, I, p. 336, n. 1.
On Saadia's relation to the Kalam, see Kaufmann, Hid., p. 3, n. 5, et al.

78 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

sanguinuous marriages.1 These, and similar enactments are what
Q-od called "my statutes" (Tllpn), which, as the Rabbis say are
"statutes which I (God) have enacted for thee, which thou hast
no right to subject to criticism, which the nations of the world
attack and which Satan denounces, as for instance, the statutes
concerning the red heifer, the scapegoat, and so forth".2 Those
transgressions, however, which the later sages called rational
laws are termed commandments (filSfi), as the Rabbis explained.3

It is now evident from all that we have said, what the trans-
gressions are for which, if a man have no desire at all, he is on
a higher plane than he who has a longing, but controls his
passion for them; and it is also evident what the transgres-
sions are of which the opposite is true. It is an astonishing
fact that these two classes of expressions should be shown to
be compatible with one another, but their content points to
the truth of our explanation.

This ends the discussion of the subject-matter of this chapter.

1 See Rosin, Ethik, p. 94, n. 4.

5 Yoma, 67 b: laro^ Kin p nroj vb N^NP D-nai its>»n ^SPD n« ]xr\ wn
new *npn nx[i] o»n ro*oi toil D"DT ni3Bt?i nmj? '•I'pii nit mias? ]n V?«i
titsw niyoto Tin nVoN )n i^«i jn^p p-^o ntoyn ntDixi on^s? :TB>D jtstww
•OH fn "OK itti^ iiD'jn en inn n^»o noNn wnts'i nbnts>»n wvn j?n^n ninoi noy
]na imnV nwi ^bl 1^1 vnppn 'n.

3 Of. Eth. Nic., V, 10, where the "just" is spoken of as of two kinds,
the natural and the conventional, the former corresponding to "command-
ments" (niSD), and the latter to "statutes" (D'pn). The former, says
Aristotle, have everywhere the same force, while the latter may be this
way or that way indifferently, except after enactment, being, in short,
all matters of special decree, such as, for instance, the price of a ransom
being fixed at a mina, or sacrificing a goat instead of two sheep, etc.

M. discusses the nature of the commandments in Moreh, III, 26. He
makes, as here, a distinction between commandments whose object is
generally evident, such as the prohibition of murder, theft, etc., and those
whose object is not generally clear, such as the prohibition of wearing
garments of wool and linen, boiling milk and meat together, etc. The
former he calls judgments (DSB2»D, termed niSB here), and the latter he
designates statutes or ordinances (n^pn). See Scheyer, Dalalat al Haiirin,
Part III (Frankfurt am Main, 1838), p. 178, n. 2; and Lazurus, Ethics, I,
pp. 118-119.

CHAPTER VII

CONCERNING THE BARRIER (BETWEEN GOD AND MAN) AND
ITS SIGNIFICATION*

MANY passages are found in the Midrash, the Haggadah,
and also the Talmud, which state that some of the prophets
beheld God from behind many barriers, and some from behind
only a few, according to the proximity of the prophet to Him,
and the degree of his prophetic power.2 Consequently, the
Rabbis said that Moses, our teacher, saw God from behind a
single, clear, that is transparent, partition. As they express
it, "He (Moses) looked through a translucent specularia" .3 Spe-
cularia is the name of a mirror made of some transparent body
like crystal or glass, as is explained at the end of Tractate

i For a discussion of the contents of this chapter, see Jaraczewski,
ZPhEr, XL VI, pp. 14—15; Rosin, Ethik, p. 113 ff., and Graetz (Eng. ed.),
vol. Ill, pp. 483-484 on M.'s views on prophecy.

J For a detailed discussion of prophecy, see Moreh, II, 32-48. See supra,
c. I, p. 45, n. 3. See also Bloch, Charakteristik und Inhaltsangabe des Moreh
Nebuchim, in Moses ben Maimon, I, pp. 35-39.

3 Yebamot, 49 b: Sanoi ivm n»a ,;rv«& nrtw N^pBDto ibanoi owaan ba
nvxan N^pBDKa. Cf. also Leviticus Rabbah, I. In Perek Helek, M.
describes the four points in which the prophecy of Moses was distin-
guished from^that of the other prophets. See Holzer, Dogmenlehre, pp. 24-25.
Cf. also Mishneh Torah, Sefer Madda, I, 7, 6; Moreh, I, Introduction (beg.),
and II, 35.

4 The passage in his commentary on Kelim, XXX, 2 to which M. refers
is as follows : mania r6o ^s« Kim v-vinNO mtrh new i»« noaen «sn tr-^pBOK
nKT1 »h •'i^BD ian |fi i« ix^a \o i« rvaiam «in» noaon mn« n«T» nn (T«I pen
n»« n«e Tnan noaen n^eann i«npM "n»Kn vujr» ^j> n«T «^ |a

n"j>ie riwna toon ns ^>j? ia«i m»«on N-n^p&DK vnin«a nan
ni»nn nona «in i»«e msn ityB«» na n^an ^j? *pans «iian i
••ni mun '3XT K^ '•a nta pan^ na«» laa. Specularia (Lat.) = windowpanes, a
window. Job 28,17, rvaiat, glass = «^j3SDX (Ta^Mm). Cf. Sukkah, 45 b;
Gen. Rabbah, sect. 91; etc.

80 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Let me now explain the above statement. In accordance
with what we have made clear in Chapter II, virtues are
either intellectual or moral. Similarly, vices are intellectual, as
ignorance, stupidity, and want of understanding; or they are
moral as inordinate lust, pride, irascibility, anger, impudence, ava-
rice, and many other similar defects, a list of which we have
given and explained in Chapter IV. Each of these defects is
as a partition separating man from God, the Most High. This
is what the prophet meant when he said, "But your iniquities
have ever made a separation between you and your God";1
which means that our sins — which, as we have said, are the
evil qualities — are the partitions which separate us from God.2

Know, then, that no prophet received the gift of prophecy,
unless he possessed all the mental virtues and a great majority
of the most important moral ones. So, the Eabbis said, "Pro-
phecy rests only upon the wise, the brave, and the rich".3 By
the word "wise", they undoubtedly refer to all the mental per-
fections. By "rich", they designate the moral perfection of
contentment, for they call the contented man rich, their de-
finition of the word "rich" being, "Who is rich? He who is
contented with his lot",4 that is, one who is satisfied with
what fortune brings him, and who does not grieve on account
of things which he does not possess. Likewise, "brave" stands
for a moral perfection; that is, one who is brave guides his
faculties in accordance with intelligence and reason, as we have
shown in Chapter V. The Rabbis say, "Who is brave? He
who subdues his passions".5

1 Isa. LIX, 2.

2 On man's nearness to God being determined by the conduct of man,
and God's removal from the earth by sin, see Schechter, Some Aspects of
Rabbinic Theology, pp. 33, 83, 232-3, 241.

3 Nedarim, 38 a; Shabbat, 92 a: !?W1 nwi TQJ DDn h* tib* mw narstwi v«
nwp. Of. Moreh, II. 32. * Abot, IV, 1.

5 Ibid., IV, 1. See, also, Yesode ha-Torah, VII, 1, for an account of
the characteristics necessary for a prophet. Cf. Moreh, II, 36, and
III, 51, where M. briefly describes those who form the class of prophets
as directing all their minds to the attainment of perfection in metaphysics,
devoting themselves entirely to God, and employing all their intellectual
faculties in the study of the universe, in order to derive a proof for

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VII 81

It is not, however, an indispensable requirement that a
prophet should possess all the moral virtues, and be entirely
free from every defect, for we find that Scripture testifies in
reference to Solomon, who was a prophet, that "the Lord ap-
peared to Solomon in Gibeon",1 although we know that he
had the moral defect of lust, which is plainly evident from
the fact that he took so many wives, a vice springing from
the disposition of passion which resided in his soul. It plainly
says, "Did not Solomon sin by these things?"2 Even David
— a prophet, according to the words, "To me spoke the Rock
of Israel" 3 — we find guilty of cruelty, and, although he exercised
it only against the heathens, and in the destruction of non-
believers, being merciful towards Israel, it is explicitly stated
in Chronicles that God, considering him unworthy, did not
permit him to build the Temple, as it was not fitting in His
eyes, because of the many people David caused to be killed.
So, God said to him, "Thou shalt not build a house to my
name, because much blood hast thou shed".4 We find, also,
that Elijah gave vent to his anger, and although he did so
only against unbelievers, against whom his wrath blazed up,
the sages declared that God took him from the world, saying
to him, "He who has so much zeal as thou hast is not
fit to guide men, for thou wilt destroy them".5 Likewise, we
find that Samuel feared Saul, and that Jacob was afraid to
meet Esau. These and similar characteristics were so many
partitions between the prophets (peace be unto them !) and God.
He of them who had two or three qualities which did not
maintain the proper medium, as is explained in Chapter IV,
is said to have seen God from behind two or three partitions.

Thou must not be surprised to learn, however, that a few
moral imperfections lessen the degree of prophetic inspiration; in
fact, we find that some moral vices cause prophecy to be entirely
withdrawn. Thus, for instance, wrath may do this, as our

the existence of God, and to learn in every way possible how God rules
things.

i I K. Ill, 5 2 Neh. XIII, 26. * II Sam. XXIII, 3.

« I Ch. XXII, 8. s Sanhedrin, 113 a.

F

82 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

Rabbis say, "If a prophet becomes enraged, the spirit of pro-
phecy departs from him".1 They adduce proof for this from
the case of Elisha, from whom, when he became enraged, pro-
phecy departed, until his wrath had subsided, at which he ex-
claimed, "And now bring me a musician!"2

Grief and anxiety may also cause a cessation of prophecy,
as in the case of the patriarch Jacob who, during the days
when he mourned for Joseph, was deprived of the Holy Spirit,
until he received the news that his son lived, whereupon Scripture
says, "The spirit of Jacob, their father, revived",3 which the
Targum* renders, "And the spirit of prophecy descended upon
their father, Jacob". The sages, moreover, say, "The spirit of
prophecy rests not upon the idle, nor upon the sad, but upon
the joyous".5

When Moses, our teacher, discovered that there remained no
partition between himself and God which he had not removed,
and when he had attained perfection by acquiring every possible
moral and mental virtue, he sought to comprehend God in His
true reality, since^. there seemed no longer to be any hindrance
thereto. He, therefore, implored of God, "Show me, I beseech
Thee, Thy glory".6 But God informed him that this was im-
possible, as his intellect, since he was a human being, was still
influenced by matter. So, God's answer was, "For no man can
see me and live".7 Thus, there remained between Moses and
his comprehension of the true essence of God only one trans-
parent obstruction, which was his human intellect still resident

i Pesahim 66 b. Cf. Moreh, II, 36 (end).

» II K. Ill, 15. See Pesahim 117 a. 3 Gen. XLV, 27.

1 M. attached a great deal of importance to the Targum of Onkelos
in the elucidation of many biblical passages, and refers to it many times
in the Moreh. In Moreh, I, 27, he speaks of Onkelos, the proselyte, as
being thoroughly acquainted with the Hebrew and Chaldaic languages.
See Frankel, Hodegetik, p. 322, and Bacher, Die Bibelexegese Moses Maimunis,
pp. 38-42.

5 Shabbat, 30 b; Pesahim, loc. cit.: tibi fi^s» ^no vh mi» ru'stwi yw
im -pflo »b» n^eo nnm -pro vb »N-I nibp -pro «"?i pint? -pro *6i nusj?
hvf nnD». Cf. Moreh, II, 36 (end).
Ex. XXXIII, 18. 7 ibid., XXXIII, 20.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VII 83

in matter. God, however, was gracious in imparting to him,
after his request, more knowledge of the divine than he had
previously possessed, informing him that the goal (he sought)
was impossible of attainment, because he was yet a human being. 1
The true comprehension of God, Moses designates by the
term "beholding the Divine face", for, when one sees another
person face to face his features become imprinted upon the
mind, so that one will not confuse him whom he has seen with
others; whereas, if he sees only his back, he may possibly
recognize him again, but will more probably be in doubt, and
confuse him with others. Likewise, the true comprehension of
God is a conception of the reality of His existence fixed in
the mind (of the knower) which, as concerns this existence, is
a conception not shared by any other being; so that there is
firmly implanted in the mind of the knower a knowledge of
God's existence absolutely distinct from the knowledge the mind
has of any other being (that exists). It is impossible, however,
for mortal man to attain this high degree of comprehension,
though Moses (peace be unto him) almost, but not quite, reached
it, which thought is expressed by the words, "Thou shalt see
my back parts".2 I intend more fully to discuss this subject
in my Book on Prophecy.*

So, since the sages (peace be unto them) knew that these

1 The corporeal element in man is a screen and partition that prevents
him from perceiving abstract ideals, as they are. It is absolutely impossible
for the human mind to comprehend the Divine Being, even though the
corporeal element were as pure as that of the spheres. The Scriptural
passages Ps. XCVII, 2 and XVIII, 12 express in figurative language this
idea, that, on account of our bodies, we are unable to comprehend God's
essence (Moreh, III, 9).

» Ex. XXXIII, 23. Cf. Yesode ha-Torah, I, 10. "But my face shall
not be seen" (Ex. XXXIII, 23) means that*God's true existence, as it is,
cannot be comprehended (Moreh, I, 37), and "thou shalt see my back"
(Ex. loc. cit.) signifies that!; God allowed Moses to see that which follows
Him, is similar to Him, and is the result of the Divine Will, i. e., all
things created by God (Moreh, I, 39). Cf. also Moreh, I, 21 and 54. See,
on the interpretation of "my back" ('inN) and "my face" ("iB), Kaufmann,
Attributenlehre, p. 405, and n. 72.

3 See supra c. I, p. 45 n. 3.

F*

84 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

two classes of vices, that is, the mental and the moral, separated
man from God, and that according to them the rank of
the prophets varied, they (the Rabbis) said of some of their
own number, with whose wisdom and morality they were ac-
quainted, "It is fitting that the spirit of God should rest upon
them as it did upon Moses, our teacher".1 Do not, however,
mistake the intention of the comparison. They did, indeed,
compare them with Moses, for they were far (God forbid!) from
giving them equal rank. In the same way they speak of others,
characterizing them as being "like Joshua".

This is what we intended to explain in this chapter.

1 Sukkah, 28 a; Baba Batra, 134 a. See Kosin, Ethik, p. 114, n. 5.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCEKNING THE NATURAL DISPOSITION OF MAN t

IT is impossible for man to be born endowed by nature
from his very birth with either virtue or vice, just as it is im-
possible that he should be born skilled by nature in any part-
icular art. It is possible, however, that through natural causes
he may from birth be so constituted as to have a predilection
for a particular virtue or vice, so that he will more readily
practise it than any other.2 For instance, a man whose natural
constitution inclines towards dryness, whose brain matter is clear
and not overloaded with fluids, finds it much easier to learn,
remember, and understand things than the phlegmatic man
whose brain is encumbered with a great deal of humidity. But,
if one who inclines constitutionally towards a certain excellence
is left entirely without instruction, and if his faculties are not
stimulated, he will undoubtedly remain ignorant. On the other
hand, if one by nature dull and phlegmatic, possessing an abun-
dance of humidity, is instructed and enlightened, he will, though
with difficulty, it is true, gradually succeed in acquiring know-
ledge and understanding. In exactly the same way, he whose
blood is somewhat warmer than is necessary has the requisite

1 The title applies only to the first part of the chapter which is mainly
a discussion of human free will, and is be supplemented by parts of M.'s
Commentary on Abot, by H. Teshubah, V and VI, and Moreh, III, 16 — 21.
On the contents of this chapter, see Jaraczewski, ZPhKr, XL VI, pp. 15
— 15; and Rosin, Ethik, p. 62 ff.

2 Of. Eth. Nic., II, 1, "The virtues, then, come to be in us neither by
nature nor in despite of nature, but we are furnished with a capacity for
receiving them, and are perfected in them through custom". This applies
to nations as well as to individuals; see Pirke Mosheh, c. XXV, fol. 53 a.

86 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

quality to make of him a brave man. Another, however, the
temperament of whose heart is colder than it should be, is
naturally inclined towards cowardice and fear, so that if he
should be taught and trained to be a coward, he would easily
become one. If, however, it be desired to make a brave man
of him, he can without doubt become one, providing he receive
the proper training which would require, of course, great
exertion.

I have entered into this subject so thou mayest not believe
the absurd ideas of astrologers, who falsely assert that the con-
stellation at the time of one's birth determines whether one is
to be virtuous or vicious, the individual being thus necessarily
compelled to follow out a certain line of conduct. We, on the
contrary, are convinced that our Law1 agrees with Greek
philosophy, which substantiates with convincing proofs the con-
tention that man's conduct is entirely in his own hands, that
no -compulsion is exerted, and that no external influence is
brought to bear upon him that constrains him to be either
virtuous or vicious, except inasmuch as, according to what we
have said above, he may be by nature so constituted as to find
it easy or hard, as the case may be, to do a certain thing; but
that he must necessarily do, or refrain from doing, a certain
thing is absolutely untrue.2 Were a man compelled to act ac-

» Of. Moreh, HI, 17, Fifth Theory.

1 Saadia was the first Jewish philosopher to dwell at length upon the
question of free will (Emunot we-Deot, III), being influenced by the dis-
cussions of Arabic theologians, although Philo, who generally followed
the system of the Stoics, professed a belief in this doctrine (Quod Deus
Sit Immutabilis, ed. Mangey, p. 279). He was followed by Bahya (Hobot
ha-Lebabot, III, 8); Ibn Zaddik ('Olam Raton, p. 69, ed. Jellinek, Leipzig,
1854); Yehudah ha-Levi (Cuzari, pt. V, ed. Cassel, p. 418); Abraham Ibn
Ezra ( Yesod Morah, VII); and Ibn Baud (Emunah Bamah, p. 96, ed. Weil,
Frankfurt a. M., 1842). For references to passages in M.'s works where
he discusses free will, see p. 85 n. 1. M. undoubtedly had Eth. Nic. Ill
in mind when he said that "Our Law agrees with Greek philosophy".
See especially Eth. Nic. Ill, 5. 7, where are found the following statements,
"So it seems as has been said, that man is the originator of his actions",
and "if it is in our power to do and to forbear doing what is creditable
or the contrary, and these respectively constitute the being good or bad,
then the being good or vicious characters is in our power". See Rosin,

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 87

cording to the dictates of predestination, then the commands
and prohibitions of the Law would become null and void, and
the Law would be completely false, since man would have no
freedom of choice in what he ; does. Moreover, it would be use-
less, in fact absolutely in vain, for man to study, to instruct,
or attempt to learn an art, as it would be entirely impossible
for him, on account of the external force compelling him, ac-
cording to the opinion of those who hold this view, to keep from
doing a certain act, from gaining certain knowledge, or from
acquiring a certain characteristic. Reward and punishment,
too, would be pure injustice, both as regards man towards man,
and as between God and man.1 Suppose, under such conditions,
that Simeon should kill Reuben. Why should the former be
punished, seeing that he was constrained to do the killing, and
Reuben was predestined to be slain? How could the Almighty,
who is just and righteous, chastise Simeon for a deed which it
was impossible for him to leave undone, and which, though he
strove with all his might, he would be unable to avoid? If
such were the true state of affairs, all precautionary measures,
such as building houses, providing means of subsistence, fleeing
when one fears danger, and so forth, would be absolutely use-
less, for that which is decreed beforehand must necessarily happen.
This theory is, therefore, positively unsound, contrary to reason
and common sense, subversive of the fundamental principles of
religion, and attributes injustice to God (far be it from Him!).
In reality, the undoubted truth of the matter is that man has
full sway over all his actions. If he wishes to do a thing, he
does it; if he does not wish to do it, he need not, without any
external compulsion controlling him. Therefore, God very properly
commanded man, saying, "See I have set before thee this day life
and the good, death and evil .... therefore choose thou life",2

Ethik, p. 5, n. 4, and p. 66, n. 1. Consult on this subject I. Broyde, in
J. E; vol. V, art. Free Will, and works mentioned there ; Wolff, Acht Ca-
pitel, Excursus, III, pp. 84 — 85; and Cohen, Characteristik, etc., in Moses
ben Maimon, I, p. 76.

1 M. mentions the same argument in the Moreh, but it had often been
advanced before him. See Rosin, Ethik, p. 67, n. 2.

2 Deut. XXX, 15. 19. Cf. H. Teshubah, V, 3.

88 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

giving us, as regards these, freedom of choice. Consequently,
punishment is inflicted upon those who disobey, and reward
granted to the obedient, as it is said, "If thou wilt hearken",
and "If thou wilt not hearken".1 Learning and teaching are
also necessary, according to the commands, "Ye shall teach
them to your children",1* "and ye shall do them and observe
to do them",2 and, similarly, all the other passages referring to
the study of the commandments. It is also necessary to take
all the precautionary measures laid down in the Law, such as,
"Thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof; that thou bring
not blood upon thy house",3 "lest he die in the battle",4 "wherein
shall he sleep?"5, and "no man shall take to pledge the nether
or the upper millstone",6 and many other passages in regard to
precautions found in the Law and the Prophets.7

The statement found in the sayings of the Rabbis, "All is
in the power of God except the fear of God" 8 is, nevertheless,
true, and in accord with what we have laid down here. Men
are, however, very often prone to err in supposing that many
of their actions, in reality the result of their own free will, are
forced upon them, as, for instance, marrying a certain woman,
or acquiring a certain amount of money. Such a supposition
is untrue. If a man espouses and marry a woman legally, then
she becomes his lawful wife, and by his marrying her he has
fulfilled the divine command to increase and multiply. God,
however, does not decree the fulfillment of a commandment.
If, on the other hand, a man has consummated with a woman
an unlawful marriage, he has committed a transgression. But
God does not decree that a man shall sin. Again, suppose a
man robs another of money, steals from him, or cheats him,
and then uttering a false oath, denies it; if we should say that
God had destined that this sum should pass into the hands of
the one and out of the possession of the other, God would

' Deut. XI, 27. 28. i» Ibid., XI, 19. 2 Ibid., V, 1. a Ibid.,

XXII, 8. * Ibid^ XX, 5 or 7. » Ex. XXII, 26. 6 Deut. XXIV, 6.

^ See H. Teshubah, V, 4, and Moreh, III, 20; cf. Ibn Baud, Emunah
Ramah, II, 6, 2, p. 96.

8 Berakot, 33 b; Niddah, 16 b; Megillah, 25 a.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 89

be preordaining an act of iniquity. Such, however, is not the
case, but rather that all of man's actions, which are subject to
his free will, undoubtedly either comply with, or transgress,
God's commands; for, as has been explained in Chapter II, the
commands and prohibitions of the Law refer only to those actions
with regard to which man has absolute free choice to do, or
refrain from doing. Moreover, to this faculty of the soul (i. e.
the freedom of the will) "the fear of God" is subservient, and
is, in consequence, not predestined by God, but, as we have
explained, is entirely in the power of the human free will.
By the word "all" (^OH), the Rabbis meant to designate only
natural phenomena which are not influenced by the will of man,
as whether a person is tall or short, whether it is rainy or dry,
whether the air is pure or impure, and all other such things
that happen in the world, and which have no connection with
man's conduct.

In making this assertion that obedience or disobedience to
the Law of God does not depend upon the power or will of
God, but solely upon that of man himself, the sages followed
the dictum of Jeremiah, who said, "Out of the mouth of God
there cometh neither the bad nor the good".1 By the words
"the bad" he meant vice, and by "the good", virtue; and, ac-
cordingly, he maintains that God does not preordain that any
man should be vicious or virtuous. Since this is so, it be-
hooves man to mourn and weep over the sins and the trans-
gressions he has committed, as he has sinned of his own free
will in accordance with what the prophet says, "Wherefore
should a living man mourn? Let every man mourn because of
his sins".2 He continues, then, to tell us that the remedy for
this disease is in our own hands, for, as our misdeeds were the
result of our own free will, we have, likewise, the power to repent

1 Lam. Ill, 38. This verse is, however, generally translated, "Out of
the mouth of God, the Most High, cometh there not evil as well as good?",
which is exactly the opposite of M.'s interpretation. This verse is also
quoted in H. Teshubah, V, 2, where M. states that it is wholly in the
power of man to be as righteous as Moses or as wicked as Jeroboam.

2 Lam. Ill, 39.

90 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

of our evil deeds, and so he goes on to say, "Let us search
through and investigate our ways, and let us return to the
Lord. Let us lift up our heart with our hands to God, in the
heavens".1

As regards the theory generally accepted by people, and
likewise found in rabbinical and prophetical writings, that man's
sitting and rising, and in fact all of his movements, are governed
by the will and desire of God, it may be said that this is true
only in one respect. Thus, for instance, when a stone is thrown
into the air and falls to the ground, it is correct to say that
the stone fell in accordance with the will of God, for it is true
that God decreed that the earth and all that goes to make it
up, should be the centre of attraction, so that when any part
of it is thrown into the air, it is attracted back to the centre.
Similarly, all the particles of fire ascend according to God's
will, which preordained that fire should go upward.2 But it
is wrong to suppose that when a certain part of the earth
is thrown upward God wills at that very moment that it
should fall. The MutdkaUimun^ are, however, of a different
opinion in this regard, for I have heard them say that the
Divine Will is constantly at work, decreeing everything from
time to time.4 We do not agree with them, but believe that
the Divine Will ordained everything at creation, and that all
things, at all times, are regulated by the laws of nature, and
run their natural course, in accordance with what Solomon said,
"As it was, so it will ever be, as it was made so it continues,
and there is nothing new under the sun".5 This occasioned the
sages to say that all miracles which deviate from the natural
course of events, whether they have already occured, or, according
to promise, are to take place in the future, were fore-ordained

1 Ibid., HI, 40^1. Of. H. Teshubah, loc. cit.

2 Aristotle uses the example of a stone and fire, in Eth. Nic., II, 1, to
show that nature is not affected by custom. A stone by custom can never
be brought to ascend, nor fire do descend. Moral virtues are, however,
the result of custom.

3 See supra, c. I. p. 41, n. 2; and p. 77.

* Cf. Moreh, I, 73. Sixth Proposition. See Munk, Guide, I, p. 286, n. 3.
» Eccles. I, 9.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 91

by the Divine Will during the six days of creation, nature being
then so constituted that those miracles which were to happen
really did afterwards take place. Then, when such an occurence
happened at its proper time, it may have been regarded as an
absolute innovation, whereas in reality it was not.1

The Rabbis expatiate very much upon this subject in the Mi-
drash KoheUth and in other writings, one of their statements in
reference to this matter being, "Everything follows its natural
course".2 In everything that they said, you will always find that
the Rabbis (peace be unto them!) avoided referring to the Divine
Will as determining a particular event at a particular time. When,
therefore, they said that man rises and sits down in accordance
with the will of God, their meaning was that, when man was
first created, his nature was so determined that rising up and
sitting down were to be optional to him; but they as little meant
that God wills at any special moment that man should or should
not get up, as He determines at any given time that a certain
stone should or should not fall to the ground.3 The sum and
substance of the matter is, then, that thou shouldst believe that
just as God willed that man should be upright in stature, broad-
chested, and have fingers, likewise did He will that man should
move or rest of his own accord, and that his actions should be

1 M. reiterates this view of the miracles in his Commentary on Abot,
V, 6, which enumerates ten things created on the eve of the Sabbath of
the week of creation. See Lipmann Heller, in Tosefot Yom-Tob, on this
passage; and Hoffman, Mischnaioth, Seder Nezikin, Berlin, 1889, p. 353.
Cf. Moreh, I, 66, and Munk, Guide, I, p. 296. M. also supported this
view in Moreh, II, 29 where he refers to Genesis Rabbah, V, 4, and
Exodus Rabbah, XXI, 6, which read, "When God created the world He made
an agreement that the sea should divide, the fire not hurt, the lions not
harm, the fish not swallow persons singled out by God for certain times,
and thus the whole order of things changes whenever he finds it neces-
sary." Consult on this subject Joel, Moses Maimonides, 1876, p. 77 ; Rosin,
Ethik, p. 69, n. 5; "Wolff, Acht Capitel, Excursus, IV; Lazarus, Ethics, II,
p. 77, n. 1; Kohler, art. Miracles, in J. E., vol. VIII, pp. 606—607; Geiger,
Judaism and its History, p. 348.

1 'Abodah Zarah, 54b. See Lazarus, ibid., II, p. 74 ff.

3 Cf. M.'s Commentary on Abot, IV, 23 (Rawicz, Commentar, pp. 89 — 90);
H. Teshubah, V, 4, and Moreh, III, 17, Fifth Theory. See Rosin, Ethik,
p. 69, n. 6.

92 THE ETHICS OP MAIMONIDES

such as his own free will dictates to him, without any outside
influence or restraint, which fact God clearly states in the truth-
ful Law, which elucidates this problem, when it says, "Behold,
the man is become as one of us to know good and evil".1 The
Targum, in paraphrasing this passage, explains the meaning of
the words mimmenu lada'at tob wara'. Man has become the only
being in the world who possesses a characteristic which no other
being has in common with him. What is this characteristic?
It is that by and of himself man can distinguish between good
and evil, and do that which he pleases, with absolutely no
restraint. Since, then, this is so, it would have even been possible
for him to have stretched out his hand, and, taking of the tree
of life, to have eaten of its fruit, and thus live forever.2

Since it is an essential characteristic of man's makeup that
he should of his own free will act morally or immorally, doing
just as he chooses, it becomes necessary to teach him the ways
of righteousness, to command and exhort him, to punish and
reward him according to his deserts. It behooves man also to
accustom himself to the practice of good deeds, until he acquires
the virtues corresponding to those good deeds; and, furthermore,
to abstain from evil deeds so that he may eradicate the vices
that may have taken root in him. Let him not suppose that
his characteristics have reached such a state that they are no
longer subject to change, for any one of them may be altered
from the good to the bad, and vice versa; and, moreover, all in
accordance with his own free will. To confirm this theory, we
have mentioned all these facts concerning the observances and
the transgressions of the Law.

It now remains for us to explain another phase of this problem,
which arises from the fact that there are several Scriptural
passages in which some think they find proof that God pre-
ordains and forces man to disobedience. This being an erroneous
opinion, it becomes our duty to explain these passages, since
so many people are confused regarding them. One of these is
that in which God said to Abraham, "and they (the Egyptians)

Gen. HI, 22. ' Of. H. Teshubah, V, 1.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 93

will make them (the Israelites) serve, and they will afflict them".1
"Is it not evident", it is claimed, "that God decreed that the
Egyptians should oppress the seed of Abraham? Then, why
did He punish them, since, owing to divine predestination, it
was inexorably decreed that they should enslave the Israelites?"
The answer to this is as follows. Suppose God had said that
of those who were to be born in the future, some were to be
transgressors and others observers of the Law, some pious and
some wicked. Such would take place, but it would by no means
follow from this divine decree that a certain individual would
necessarily have to do evil, or that another pious individual
would be forced to do good. On the contrary, every evil-doer
would become such of his own free will; if he preferred to be
a righteous man, it would be in his power, and nothing could
prevent him from becoming such. Likewise, if every righteous
man preferred to do evil, nothing would hinder him, for God's
decree was not pronounced against any certain individual, so
that he might say, "It has already been decreed that I do this
or that", but [these words] applied to the race in general, at the
same time allowing every individual to retain his own free will,
according to the very makeup of his nature. Consequently, every
Egyptian who maltreated or oppressed the Israelites had it in
his own power not to do them any injury unless he wanted to,
for it was not ordained that any certain individual should harm
them.2

The same answer may also apply to another passage in
which God says, "Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and
then will this people rise up and go astray after the gods of
the stranger of the land".3 This is no more nor less than if
God had said, "Whoever practises idolatry will meet with
this or that treatment", but, if no transgressor should ever be
found, then the threat of punishment for idolatry would become
nullified, and the curses would all be ineffectual.4 The same is
true of all punishments mentioned in the Law. As we cannot
say that simply because we find the law of stoning for Sabbath-

t Gen. XV, 13. * Cf. H. Teshubah, VI, 5. s Deut.

XXXI, 16. * Cf. H. T'shubah, loc. cit.

94 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

breakers [in the Torah] that he who desecrates the Sabbath was
compelled to violate it, no more can we maintain that because
certain maledictions occur there that those who practised idolatry,
and upon whom these curses consequently fell, were predestined
to be idol-worshippers. On the contrary, every one who prac-
tised idolatry did so of his own volition, and so received due
punishment, in consonance with the passage, "Yea they have
made a choice of their own ways ... so will I also make choice
of their misfortune".1

As regards, however, the words of God, "and I will harden
the heart of Pharaoh",2 afterwards punishing him with death,
there is much to be said, and from which there may be deduced
an important principle. Weigh well what I say in this matter,
reflect upon it, compare it with the words of others,3 and give
preference to that which is best. If Pharaoh and his coun-
sellors had committed no other sin than that of not permitting
Israel to depart, I admit that the matter would be open
to great doubt, for God had prevented them from releasing
Israel according to the words, "For I have hardened his heart
and the hearts of his servants".4 After that, to demand of
Pharaoh that he send them forth while he was forced to do
the contrary, and then to punish him because he did not dis-
miss them, finally putting him and all his followers to death,
would undoubtedly be unjust, and would completely contradict
all that we have previously said. Such, however, was not the
real state of affairs, for Pharaoh and his followers, already of
their own free will, without any constraint whatever, had rebelled
by oppressing the strangers who were in their midst, having
tyrannized over them with great injustice, as Scripture plainly
states, "And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the
children of Israel is more numerous and mightier than we, come
let us deal wisely with it".5 This they did through the dictates
of their own free will and the evil passions of their hearts, with-
out any external constraint forcing them thereto. The punish-

» Isa. LXVI, 3. 4. 2 Ex. XIV, 4. 3 M. probably

means Abraham ibn Ezra and Ibn Baud. See Rosin, Ethik, p. 24.
< Ex., X, 1. s Ibid., I, 9, 10.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 95

ment which God then inflicted upon them was that He withheld
from them the power of repentance, so that there should fall upon
them that punishment which justice declared should he meted
out to them. The fact that they were prevented from repenting
manifested itself by Pharaoh's not dismissing them. This God
had explained and told him, namely, that if He had merely
wished to liberate Israel, He would have destroyed him and
his adherents, and He would have brought out the Israelites;
but, in addition to the liberation of his people, God wished to
punish him because of his previous oppression of Israel, as it
is said at the beginning of the matter, "And also that nation
whom they shall serve will I likewise judge".1 It would have
been impossible to have punished them, if they had repented;
therefore repentance was withheld from them, and they continued
to keep the children of Israel in bondage, as it says, "For even
now I have stretched out my hand, etc. . . . but for this cause
have I allowed thee to remain".2

No one can find fault with us when we say that God at
times punishes man by withholding repentance from him, thus
not allowing him free will as regards repentance, for God (blessed
be He) knows the sinners, and His wisdom and equity mete out
their punishment. Sometimes, He punishes only in this world,
sometimes only in the world to come, sometimes in both. Further-
more, His punishment in this world is varied, sometimes being
bodily, sometimes pecuniary, and sometimes both at once. Just
as some of man's undertakings, which ordinarily are subject to
his own free will, are frustrated by way of punishment, as for
instance a man's hand being prevented from working so that
he can do nothing with it, as was the case of Jereboam, the
son of Nebat3, or a man's eyes from seeing, as happened to
the Sodomites who had assembled about Lot 4, likewise does
God withhold man's ability to use his free will in regard to

1 Gen. XV, 14.

2 Ex. IX, 15. 16. The same explanation for the hardening of Pharaoh's
heart is given in H. Teshubah, VI, 3. On the withholding of repentance,
see Schechter, Some Aspects of BabUnic Theology, p. 332.

3 See I K. XIII, 4. * See Gen. XIX, 11.

96 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

repentance, so that it never at all occurs to liim to repent, and
he thus finally perishes in his wickedness. It is not necessary
for us to know about God's wisdom so as to be able to ascertain
why He inflicts precisely such punishment as He does and no
other, just as little as we know why one species has a certain
particular form and not another. It is sufficient for us to know
the general principle, that God is righteous in all His ways,
that He punishes the sinner according to his sin, and rewards
the pious according to his righteousness.

If you should inquire why God repeatedly asked Pharaoh
to release Israel which he was unable to do — while he, in
spite of the plagues which befell him, persisted in his rebellion
and stubbornness, which very rebelliousness and stubbornness
was his punishment — and yet God would not in vain have
asked him to do a thing which he could not do, then know that ,
this, too, was a part of God's wisdom, to teach Pharaoh that
God can suspend man's freedom of will when it pleases Him
to do so. So, God said to him (through Moses), "I desire that
thou shouldst liberate them, but thou wilt not dismiss them, so
that thou shouldst die". Pharaoh should have consented to
release them, and therely disprove the words of the prophet
(Moses) that he was unable to obey, but he had not the power.
Thus, a great wonder was revealed to the people, as it is said,
"In order that they may proclaim my name throughout the
earth",1 namely, that it is possible for God to punish man by
depriving him of his free will respecting a certain deed, while
he, though realizing it, is, however, unable to influence his soul,
and return to his former state of freedom of the will.

Such was, likewise, the punishment of Sihon, King of Heshbon;
for, on account of his former misdeed, to which he was not
forced, God punished him by preventing him from granting the
request of the Israelites, as a result of which they put him do
death, as Scripture says, "But Sihon, the king of Heshbon,
would not suffer our passing by him",2 etc. What has made
this passage difficult for all commentators is their impression
that Sihon was punished for not permitting Israel to pass

* Ex. IX, 16. 2 Deut. II, 30. Of. H. Teshubah, VI, 3.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 97

through his land, just as they imagined that Pharaoh and
his adherents were punished for not releasing Israel, and so
they ask, "How could he (Sihon) be justly punished, since he
was not a free agent?" These suppositions are incorrect, and
the matter is as we have explained, namely, that Pharaoh and
his adherents were punished by G-od because of their previous
oppression of Israel, of which they did not repent, so that there
befell them all the plagues; while Sihon's punishment, which
consisted of his inability to do the will of Israel, thus resulting
in his death, was due to the former deeds of oppression and
injustice which he had practised in his kingdom.1

God has, moreover, expressly stated through Isaiah that He
punishes some transgressors by making it impossible for them
to repent, which He does by the suspension of their free will.
Thus, He says, "Obdurate will remain the heart of this people
and their ears will be heavy and their eyes will be shut, lest
. . . they be converted and healing be granted them".2 The
meaning of these words is so plain and obvious that they need
no explanation. They are, however, a key to many unopened
locks. Upon this principle also are based the words of Elijah
(peace be unto him!) who, when speaking of the unbelievers of
his time, said of them, "Thou hast turned their hearts back",3
which means that, as they have sinned of their own accord,
their punishment from Thee is that Thou hast turned their
hearts away from repentance, by not permitting them to exer-
cise free will, and thus have a desire to forsake that sin, in
consequence of which they persevere in their unbelief. So it is
said, "Ephraim is bound to idols; let him alone",4 which means
that since Ephraim has attached himself to idols of his own
free will, and has become enamoured of them, his punishment
consists in his being abandoned to his indulgence in them.
This is the interpretation of the words "Let him alone". To

1 M. cannot, however, point to any biblical passage that substantiates
his contention that Sihon had previously committed injustice.

2 Isa. VI, 10, quoted also in H. Teshubah, VI, 3.

3 I K. XVIII, 37, quoted again in H. Teshubah, loc. cit., which also
refers to Josh. XI, 20.

* Hos. IV, 17.

98 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

one who understands subtle ideas, this explanation will appeal
as being excellent.

Very different, however, is the meaning of what Isaiah said,

"Why hast thou let us go astray, oh Lord, from Thy ways,

and suffered our hearts to be hardened against Thy fear?" * These

words have no bearing upon the foregoing exposition. Their

meaning is to be gathered from the context in which they occur.

The prophet, bewailing the captivity, our residence among

strangers, the cessation of our kingdom, and the sovereignty of

the nations over us, says by way of prayer, "0 God, if Israel

continues to see this state of affairs in which the unbelievers

wield the power, they will go astray from the path of truth,

and their heart will incline away from Thy fear, as if Thou

wast the cause of making those ignorant ones originally depart

from the path of truth, as our teacher Moses said, 'Then will

the nations which have heard Thy fame say in this manner

that because the Lord was not able',"2 etc. For this reason,

Isaiah said after that, "Return for the sake of Thy servants

the tribes of Thy heritage",3 so that there should not be a

blasphemy of God's name (by the heathens). Likewise, in the

"minor prophets", there is found the opinion of those who,

following the truth, were nevertheless conquered by the nations

at the time of the exile, which passage, quoting their own words,

reads, "Every one that doth evil is good in the eyes of the

Lord, and in them he findeth delight, or else, where is the God

of justice?"4 The prophet, quoting their own words which were

occasioned by the length of the exile, continues, "Ye have said,

It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept

His charge, and that we have walked contritely before the Lord

of Hosts? And now we call the presumptuous happy; yea,

built are they that practise wickedness"5, etc. Then, however,

explicitly stating that God, in the future, will reveal the truth,

he says, "And ye shall return, and see the difference between

the righteous and the wicked".6

• Isa. LXIII, 17. 2 Num. XIV, 15. 16. 3 Isa., loc. cit.

« Mai. II, 17. s ibid., Ill, 14. 15.

tti, III, 18. Of. Moreh, III, 19.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 99

These are the ambiguous passages in the Law and Scripture
from which it might appear that God compels man to commit
transgressions. We have, however, undoubtedly explained the
meaning of these verses, and if one examines it very closely, he
will find it a truthful explanation. We, therefore, hold to our
original contention, namely, that obedience or transgression of
the Law depends entirely upon man's free will; that he is the
master of his own actions; that what he chooses not to do he
leaves undone, although God may punish him for a sin which
he has committed by depriving him of his free will, as we have
made clear; furthermore, that the acquisition of virtues and
vices is entirely in the power of man, in consequence of which
it is his duty to strive to acquire virtues, which he alone can
acquire for himself, as the Rabbis in their ethical sayings in
this very tractate say, "If I am not for myself who will be
for me?"»

There is, however, one thing more relating to this problem
about which we must say a few words, in order to treat in
a comprehensive manner the subject-matter of this chapter.
Although I had not intended at all to speak of it, necessity
forces me to do so.2 This topic is the prescience of God,3
because it is with an argument based on this that our views
are opposed by those who believe that man is predestined by
God to do good or evil, and that man has no choice as to
his conduct, since his volition is dependent upon God. The
reason for their belief they base on the following statement.
"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual
will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it ne-
cessarily follows that man is compelled to act as God knew
beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be

1 Abot, I, 14. Cf. M.'s commentary on this passage.

2 M. feels it necessary here to discuss philosophically the prescience
of God, which he does reluctantly, as the Perakim are intended for readers
not versed in philosophy. See Introduction, p. 11.

3 For M.'s discussion of God's knowledge, see Perek Helelc; H. Teshubah,
V, 5; Yesode ha-Torah, II, 8-10; Moreh, I, 58, and III, 19'-21. See Munk

Guide, I, p. 301, n. 4.

a*

100 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

imperfect. If thou sayest that God does not know in advance,
then great absurdities and destructive religious theories will
result." Listen, therefore, to what I shall tell thee, reflect well
upon it, for it is unquestionably the truth.1

It is, indeed, an axiom of the science of the divine, i. e-
metaphysics, that God (may He be blessed!) does not know by
means of knowledge, and does not live by means of life,2 so
that He and His knowledge may be considered two different
things in the sense that this is true of man; for man is distinct
from knowledge, and knowledge from man, in consequence of
which they are two different things. If God knew by means
of knowledge, He would necessarily be a plurality, and the
primal essence would be composite, that is, consisting of God
Himself, the knowledge by which He knows, the life by which
He lives, the power by which He has strength, and similarly
of all His attributes. I shall only mention one argument, simple
and easily understood by all, though there are strong and con-
vincing arguments and proofs that solve this difficulty. It is
manifest that God is identical with His attributes and His
attributes with Him, so that it may be said that He is the
knowledge, the knower, and the known, and that He is the
life, the living, and the source of His own life, the same being
true of His other attributes. This conception is very hard to
grasp, and thou shouldst not hope to thoroughly understand it
by two or three lines in this treatise. There can only be im-
parted to thee a vague idea of it.3

Now, in consequence of this important axiom, the Hebrew
language does not allow the expression He Adonai (the life of
God) as it does He Fara'oh 4 (the life of Pharaoh), where the

1 For a list and the opinions of Jewish philosophers before M. who
discussed this problem, see Rosin, Ethik, p. 73, n. 5.

2 Cf. Moreh, I, 57: SHD! *b JH1M D"ro xh 'n pi, and Yesode ha-Torah,
II, 10. See Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, p. 423, and note 94.

3 For an exhaustive discussion of the theories which M. merely mentions
here, see Moreh, I, 50-51, on the attributes of God. See Munk, Guide,
I, 50, p. 179 ff., passim; Kaufmann, ibid., p. 418 ff.; Cohen, Charakteristik,
etc. in Moses ben Maimon, I, pp. 89-90.

« Gen. XLII, 15.

THE EIGHT CHAPTERS— VIII 101

word he (in the construct state) is related to the following
noun, for the thing possessed and the possessor (in this case)
are two different things. Such a construction cannot be used
in regard to the relation of a thing to itself. Since the life of
God is His essence, and His essence is His life, not being se-
parate and distinct from each other, the word "life", therefore,
cannot be put in the construct state, but the expression Hai
AdonaiL (the living God) is used, the purpose of which is to
denote that God and His life are one.2

Another accepted axiom of metaphysics is that human
reason cannot fully conceive God in His true essence, because
of the perfection of God's essence and the imperfection of our
own reason, and because His essence is not due to causes
through which it may be known.3 Furthermore, the inability
of our reason to comprehend Him may be compared to the
inability of our eyes to gaze at the sun, not because of the
weakness of the sun's light, but because that light is more
powerful than that which seeks to gaze into it.4 Much that
has been said on this subject is self-evident truth.

From what we have said, it has been demonstrated also that
we cannot comprehend God's knowledge, that our minds cannot
grasp it all, for He is His knowledge, and His knowledge is
He. This is an especially striking idea, but those (who raise
the question of God's knowledge of the future) fail to grasp
it to their dying day.5 They are, it is true, aware that the

1 Ruth, in, 13.

2 Cf. Yesode ha-Torah, II, 10, and Moreh, I, 58 (beg.). See Munk,
Guide, I, p. 302, n. 3. The expressions D'nto '•n (II Sam. II, 27), h* -n
(Job XXVII, 2), and especially -j»SJ <m nw <n (I Sam. XX, 3; XXV, 26,
and II K. II, 2), and Jer. XXXVIII, 16 substantiate this novel linguistic
argument of M. Amos VIII, 14 p "pnbx 'n is used in reference to the
gods of idolators.

3 See Aristotle's Metaphysics, XXII, 9.

4 Cf. Moreh, I, 59, "All philosophers say, 'He has overpowered us by
His grace, and it is invisible to us through the intensity of His light',
like the sun which cannot be perceived by the eyes which are too weak
to bear its rays". Cf. Bahya, Robot ha-Lebobot, I, 10. See Munk, Guide
I, p. 252; Rosin, Ethik, pp.75, n. 4; Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, pp. 324-325;
445, n.128; and Wolff, Acht Capitel, p. 80, n. 1.

* See Hebrew text, c. VIII, p. 55, n. 37.

102 THE ETHICS OF MAIMONIDES

divine essence, as it is, is incomprehensible, yet they strive to
comprehend God's knowledge, so that they may know it, but
this is, of course, impossible. If the human reason could grasp
His knowledge, it would be able also to define His essence,
since both are one and the same, as the perfect knowledge of
God is the comprehension of Him as He is in His essence,
which consists of His knowledge, His will, His life, and all His
other majestic attributes. Thus, we have shown how utterly
futile is the pretension to define His knowledge. All that we
can comprehend is that just as we know that God exists so
are we cognizant of the fact that He knows. If we are asked,
"What is the nature of God's knowledge?", we answer that we
do not know any more than we know the nature of His true
existence.1 Fault is found, moreover, with him who tries to
grasp the truth of the divine existence, as expressed by the
words, "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou
find out the Almighty unto perfection?"2

Reflect, then, upon all that we have said, namely, that man
has control over his actions, that it is by his own determination
that he does either the right or the wrong, without, in either
case, being controlled by fate,3 and that, as a result of this
divine commandment, teaching, preparation, reward, and punish-
ment are proper. Of this there is absolutely no doubt. As
regards, however, the character of God's knowledge, how He
knows everything, this is, as we have explained, beyond the
reach of human ken.

This is all that we purposed saying in this chapter, and it
is now time for us to bring our words to an end, and begin
the interpretation of this treatise 4 to which these eight chapters
are an introduction.

1 Cf. Moreh, III, 20-21. 2 Job XI, 7.

s In his Commentary on Abot, III, 15, M. maintains that the phrase
"Everything is foreseen (by God), but freedom of choice is given", is in
harmony with his theory of the omniscience of God, which does not,
however, deprive man of free will. See Rawicz, Commentary p. 75.

4 I. e., Abot

INDEX

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES

Genesis III. 22 .
XV. 13 .
XV. 14 . ,

XIX. 11
XLII. 15 .
XLV. 27

Exodus I. 9. 10 . ,
IX. 15. 16

IX. 16 .

X. 1 . .
XIV. 4 .

XX. 12 .

Page

.... 92

.... 93

.... 95

.... 95

.... 100

.... 82

.... 94

.... 95

.... 96

.... 94

.... 94

.... 65

XXII. 26 88

XXIII. 5 65

XXXIH. 18 82

XXXIII. 20 82

XXXIII. 23 83

Leviticus XVIII. 3 72

XIX. 17 66

XIX. 18 65

XIX. 32 65

Numbers VI. 11 63

XIV. 15. 16 98

XX. 8 68

XX. 10 67

XX. 12 67

XX. 24 67

Deuteronomy II. 30 96

V. 1 88

VI. 5 73

XI. 19 88

XVII. 11 .... 65

XVIII. 22 . 66

Deuteronomy XX. 5 ....
XX. 7 ....
XXII. 1 ...
XXII. 4 ...
XXII. 8 ...
XXIV. 6 . .

XXIX. 18 . .

XXX. 15. 19 .

XXXI. 16 .

Page
. 88

. 88
. 65
. 65
. 88
. 88
. 52
. 87
. 93

II Samuel XXIII. 3 81

I Kings III. 5 81

XIII. 4 95

XVIII. 37 97

II Kings III. 15 82

Isaiah VI. 10 97

LIX. 2 80

LXIII. 17 98

LVI. 3. 4 94

Jeremiah IX. 1 62

Hosea IV. 17 97

Zechariah VII. 3 64

VII. 6 64

VII. 9 64

VIII. 9 64

Malachi II. 17 98

III. 14. 15 98

III. 18 98

Psalms XIX. 9 63

XLIX. 13 70

L. 23 68

Proverbs III. 6 73

XII. 15 63

XIV. 12 53

104

INDEX

Proverbs XIX. 2 44

XXL 10 75

XXI. 15 76

Job IV. 18 67

XI. 7 102

XXV. 4 67

Ruth III. 13 101

Lamentations III. 38 89

III. 39 . 89

Page

Lamentations III. 40. 41 .... 90

Ecclesiastes I. 9 90

VII. 20 67

Nehemiah XIII. 26 81

I Chronicles XXII. 8 81

TARGUM ONKELOS

Genesis III. 22 92

XLV. 27 . .82

INDEX OP QUOTATIONS FROM THE TALMUD

MISHNAH

Abot, I. 14
II. 5
II. 12
IV. 1

Page

. . 99
. . 57
. . 73
50, 80

V. 20 57

V. 23 76

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

Berakot, 33b 88

63a 73

Shabbat, 25b 72

30b 82

92a 80

Pesahim, 66b 82

117a 82

Moed Eatan, 5a 68

Yoma, 67b 77, 78

Sukkah, 28a 84

52a 76

Telanit, Ha 63

Megillah, 25a 88

Page

Yebamot, 49b 79

Nedarim, lOa 63

38a 80

Nazir, 19a, 22a 63

Sotah, 5b 68

Baba Kamma, 30a 34

91b 63

Baba Mezi'a, 35 a 62

Baba Batra, 134 a 84

Sanhedrin, 113 a 81

Abodah Zarah, 20b 34

54b 91

Niddah, 16b 88

PALESTINIAN TALMUD

Nedarim, IX, 1 66

MIDRASHIM
Mekilta'to Ex. XV. 2 . .
Sifra to Lev. XX, 26 . .
Yalkut to Wayikra 226 .

68
76
76

55 n pie D'piB naie»

,TPBH w no nn ^rnjrw TV wijrr :wr& napai ,

n« nan ^aw nn« »inw»D ^ao n\n ijno
pjnm nfcavn njrrn p iniN^oa KVW IOD JBW Kin
JUBTQ natwiBW irwa naa *mm ^naan n«na m 4r6m
5 Hint? jnit? loa jnv Hint? jna WMJW «te «7niw nibo

nno« "

,i3«son nt? n^an ny n« «son n6« npnn
wnenai v!?« mnioo Dn«n n^iyB» "imineiw no b 14)o pni
10 fo*yapn siiyo 17nn« by l^b asm nman ^n^ao yen
bapniw^m ,btosrv\ ,i»nianni ^^lo^m ^ivsn-'wn rrn
nnsp wnjn nnann ^D^» wuiwn 'ns invsns n«m Dio« ,pBD nr

21piDB«i nj; njrin "DDI ,pnsn ma wn« nw iiira» no a mi
is i^« i^« n^ lionpn i»« 22KroDDn n«t ^insn ^nn«i ,mn nnann

raised the question of God's knowledge of future things, and they die in
ignorance of it. Mss. and edd. are corrupt, showing that IfiDI was mis-
understood, and that attempts were made to read sense into the passage.

20 Br n&m nno -ram WK Kim So inno« nno isa- i»« Him Ma nsaa n»« Kim
•jinoi one edd. ino«i innn« ono 1x22 nw« Nim. Undoubtedly now, wnfi«, and
11TI131 go back to an original inei = Ar «13^n&. By leaving off" the •[ of Ma
•]int31, the proper reading is obtained.

» Ma wpa TKI. 2 mj>Titf n» = Ar. nr6ip» nnn rp11 ""nn. Br urw

25 nni« So impT». 3 TTIWSO . . . I^NP — Ar. miia toeriN ne^a «3tDn« i^> nn.
Ma rh^f\ So ^an for ^an. * Br So psnm o«nm. Ma onbiti. • Br
nan. e Br So + 1^> ^«. ' Thus Ma = Ar. «al?«D. Br So Q«1

!?«w ii^Br. s Br > Kin. 9 Br So + i^. »o ie 'jy p^nin iaai

thus Ma = Ar. p "by 133K ipl "and He finds fault with him who". pTnn

30 b» "disprove of, find fault with". See c. IV, p. 28. n. 17; c. VIII, p. 49,
n. 29. Br So hvmm 131 pDBi 1331. " Br So hy nn1?. « Br Ma

So > 'TV. » Ma K3D. '* Ar. |0 bsnnB; Br ^3»m Ma pm

So )2m. is Br So liiewty. >« Br rV« So vhy Tian\ " Ma

So nnK. »8 Ma 'iism ii&Vn. »» Br Ma naanm. 20 unwiV msp = Ar.

35 Hi» ISpn; Ma > linsTT1?. 21 Thus Br = Ar. jNSpK )K ^ ^K 1p Ma 1331

piDBb ran So pioaV n»n »^n iaai. 22 Br So rwn Nnsoon. » Wolff
omits ^>ISB!?« nin totnp »nh TI^« KOSDU^K nnn m
So + D^pnw «i3 h»h nSnn D^ia niiown ion.

n pis D-pB MUMP

nipm Dfr PBD nr mw nwnm

54

,)i»nn nmK

nan

K!? ^ Kin

nn

p
by

« p
36Kin
b w

pm nw ni«n m
nni ,
«^ m

nn ,Kin wijn
IJ;T onty

Kim ,6'nn Kim ,B«nn Kini /yrrn Kim ,jnrn Kim ,
mpn *6 owp B^ayn ^KI ,nn«nn IKB> pi ,n"n
yra nty WDKI ,naiB s^fa? IK nnw TOB na^» man 5

••n

10

15

nra

Dno 20

Br So niajnon
; Ma

nnw

?6pi.
3 So n«n.

Br

5 Br snvn «im j>wn «ini. « Ma So
7 Br So "piPDDn «im Ma T»&< i»«i. 8 Br a^»fi.

»o Ma wnn So nrnn. " Br D"nn»n So nay. Ma >

n»n So ni«as rn. '3 Br > no«» So ie«» itsa. "

^B^BJ •'n. «» Ma > *ptM»tsrn. »« Ma > nnai.

is Br So «W *k is Br So MW. " Br So + mm.

2 Ar. mi frip sm
* Ma > ij> Br
^nn «mi '•nn Mini.
« Ma > one.

12 Ma 25
Br So n
17 Ma

21 Br >

•nn«. 22 Br So iniT3»n. 23 Br So -f- m«as. So + nw» n»« 'n ^n

r«tn »san n« «^. 2* Ma > ma ruvon. 25 So > nan. 25 Ma So 30

wwna. 27 Br nws^» "ists. as Br nmm Ma -portv 29 Ar.
so Br So n2»ip» Ma nsipa1. si Ma nsipa. si Br Ma So > ^>a« . .
= Ar. ba DDB'bN nw tffah ^n 0^.]«B. Found in edd. Basel 1804, Dessau
1809, Groningen 1845, Slutcki 1863, Lemberg 1876, etc. 33 ... ftnk

ni«n thus Ma = Ar; Br So niNin niNe pin »e»n IIK (So nrrfc nb) nvn <aBts, 35
3< So «b»i inrn p Di. 35 irwn w^a" wbi = Ar. na e^na «bi "and we

cannot comprehend Him". 36 So > ton. 37 in&l , . . «im = Ar. mi

Ktt^HB dnn«B »-6K. Wolff's rendering and explanation (see Acht Capitel, p. 80,
and n. 2) seem to be correct This wonderful idea has escaped those who

53 n pB D'ptB

"ps nt ^BOI ,2iTa 'mwnsm nityon

YJflD ^ fKtt» mtyon

PK DK KroDon 5n«t no-ion
K*?K pyn mo "iww K*?I
B sK-an from te« %a n ia-6 vijna mn K^P B'^KI ,7pisn

"DIKH ni^ys tean ,msayn ^ n»en
Ksan nty«i ,D\n^«n HTHM «n^na inTna» in« nnn
IK p^s mm DK 13DtJ7i n yns B^KH nt ,iow KIW
10 pyn ^y niaio mm» mo a«nrp yT noxn DKI ,jrr

Tta iny^T mnn IK r"D

niowy mpmn mo "ia«nm «mp» jm K» no«n OKI
,IKO n tenom 2°imK IOIKS? no

15 ii"K D»W ,ynon nn«ty no i ,mnKn noann iKann naa» nn
nnm >i^ jnom Kin mm» ny Q^nn sn 22
si» nn p DK niKn sn^»n jnem yion s

26vm '•mn 25i«nno mn jnos 24ynv n»n mn
/n Kin 29^ ^« a«nm ,J;T n 28"«yK ynom n»n

20 r6pi nnnp mya n^nn ^ sniD» D^OKI ,viKin to pi ,to 29Kin ni

» Ar. ^«&^« 3«Dn3K |«1. Poc. -4- et vitiorum = nnvnsni. AT. originally
must have read bwn^81 ^K3B^M. Br wVwBH for Tfbmm. 2 Ma > ITS.

3 Ma > DiTto. < Br ne« p^l. s Br Ma > '10103; Br Ma n«D.

6 Br So + irw. ' So pisn nt. « Ma So iitoan. 9 Him

25 nnwn (Br + ^?M) o»n njrr = Ar. nHi"«3^K3 nbb8 D!?I> ini "and it is God's
knowledge of future things", see Bloch, Sefer Hamiswoth, p. 175; I. Fried-
laender, Sprachgeb., sub £)£\ Wo., von den seienden und werdenden Dingen.
10 Ma iTte. So > na. »i Ma > DINH , . . nnaie. 12 Br So mbn.

« Thus Ma = Ar.; Br Br>«n m ^H1»n f?8»"» »3Bfi ten flHtn ni1»N^> Dli 1»H1

30 «nian w J?T So Kiian rr t^«n m ^>«i»n ^HBW «in n3io«n rn6 nnn n»«i.
" Br So invn ma. « Ma So > njrr. »e So onipo. " Br

wwm n\T ne nipn J»T «V» So n«s la^iw. is Br imnji. 19 Br So
3?e» p^. Ma > Hjea. 20 Br So ^. 21 Br So Hin '3. 22 Ma

ir«1. 23 Thus Ma = Ar. JtonK HJSHB "and therefore they are two

35 things": Br So D"W '3» DH Kin p» ]V31. p DM almost equal to p *?J>
(er^o). 2* Br o»n jnv. »» So + me. '« Br So + D'Hxaan.

» Ar. l^tH^H "the eternal things". Br > D'SI. 28 Ma > 1»H.

2« So > ton,

n pis D'piB naitttf 62

pi *i rrvnan or rrin *i nawnn
mn D'IBK B'asy inn ,3nmo DIBS ty m *iBB iTBnm ,Kinn
an«i irrmaa n^syn ^« lannn KIJW V*i
mpi pa*# n B^aion twiTBn JB nn ,1^ run py Kini

5

11 IB«I ,

,in«Ti» 03^ nta^i no«n 7110 ijwv "dnsDn niiMne piyn m
mwo "ID8D3 no«n 7110 n«s^> ^n^wn 0^30^ nao nn« n»\n 10
« rbw sn^>3» I^IBK*; "jvo^ n« ijnw T»H o^^n ^3

na«nin« o^stwoan IBRD ityj; nna 17i«3ty 1031 ,i6D»n in pyn
3 i«niTim "IBDD ie« ^ni^an pn isn^un p Dvnwan
TBDI ,BB»on \n^« (T« 1« ,vsn ^^n Dn31 ^ 'W aw 15

nuy «w nniD« 21ni^n ane p

nwas

BBTWP one 24n«Tty wipoai mina B^BIBBH B^PIBBH i« 20
2«an ny WD« ni«a «im ,pso *6a Bwy liina Him ,nnsayn ^

.niiiiannn
iman
oam

Br Ma So + wnmK; Ma oiifi for frm. 2 Ma -f- nnb. 3 Ma 25

* So + r\"9 train Br Ma + n"». » Br So ^5. « Ma

na "S3. ' Br So «inn «sain». « Br So irn^i ^». 9 posm
= Ar. tuymDpm 10 Thus Ma; nVsn TIT = Ar. «»BiynD; Br So
nt "?». » Br So oneian miain !?«-icr« IKT»S. 12 Ma o^aon
for nbwn D^aob. » Br So (So + .TJ>) iaa-i mm ia«» ntsa. J* Ma 30

> lot*1?. is Br ivtfn. »6 Br So ^viin -p» W'n. " Br i»«ai
1N3. 18 So D'Wn p. »9 Br + DTitaV 20 Br wv. 21 Br
So (So mbi) nAin ana p iaa onnano ISDI edd. n^i TIIKO pmn onnants naioi.
I. T. correctly has diTianfi, although Ar. has ttibip p. p Di = Ar. «^«; Ma

> ni^:n . . . IBDO -it5«. 22 Br ap"ri» at? wn^isani So w «m» n» wrpoanv 35
23 So + ma. 2* Br ntoin. 2» Br rrD&. 2« Br So aits.

" Ar. n^wn^Ni n»«»V« nra jtwiKto i«. Br + on So + .Tn after mwn.
2» Ma nnw6. 2» Ma > ntw «V . . . ntsi. 30 Br

31 Br wntra i»«a.

51

vki n?a

n pis oyiB naiB»

nn« n^ys rrvna

10

mp

]tn p'sno
/w
n«

nwan
prra
wwi
prra

no hy

IB nt jn
waon nrwi ,nn

103 ,«iTi^nan orb
j
nnso

no

WBI

«n nt

main * TPK 5noo

no« wm ,7im:nnt? ny

onirna ate n^ison ^y

nw noon nte
pi

nawnn ono
naan vit«i ntn

13 onion

i»n"y in^K nan a^a^in

• AT. iVia w Q^yi = nn «w jn^i; Br Ma So mmri. J Br nhv for

K"?1; Br > -[VtKb So W»V. 3 Thus edd.; AT. «MTrt Br Ma So TWvrfy.

20 * Br no»a nn Tnn ^jn. 8 Br uoa. « So v^j> way. ' Br

inwim wp ionV:» n» iVian Vww io»nn VMV So + wwm icnSa^ is

s Br So nt»n» 'JBD obs Q"»iBon ^» n»p piDBn nt ]•«» (So

«b» ""asa «b« pn*D »a»a «b ^a. » So inp. " iniain

MSB. and edd. are confused and deficient, but the text can be reconstructed

25 with the aid of the Arabic and Ma. Ar. KB3 "info W\ 3pK»^ tj-3

in

rrv

snn

30 !?» rrn
ne !?jr

no

mpn KO ^
wo\ Ma
nn

ona

no

(Br. a»n
lea «b«
35 U1H30. Br So >

. Br So w»

inn n« nwpn (So -f- «m») nnaio Mini
« itspi npia papa «S»
« Br na"pn. u Br

train So waa. »» Br »»rg. onetsn. » Br So pataw. »» I. T. > Ar.
na. Br So (So era nvnan) ,T>"nan DTa atp11 K*?I. « Br So nt3«a.

» Ar. (Poc.) Wa for ^>a. «s Ma > mn. » Br So + vtDID. 20 Br So
o»ap.
d*

nm

]&

rrvna

p ,

,pKn ton

n pifi oyiB nyazv 50

i ,n^ «an
ByBi ,iua

wvwiaa ]rw *an«n rojron rap
y» 102 8<m « i

ana
a n^«
nta

nawnn

naon no yi

a ^ton to« ,nnn« mis i nnvi
: waan sea a^won ^iBiM won 10

29,-pn p u nt r
,n^ea
nn« «^K
n«n
nw n?a mm ,D> mn

3o'n^ 15
IBB typaa
7ns mm ,rnBnt? ny

i Br So nrri»2 D'e»ai mn D^IJD D^DBBI nn^> nan trtwa D^OPB. 2 ITWB^ 20
= AT. IK; Ma + tMJP; So D"0»S. 3 Br D'BJ>B1 So D'e»B. < Br nWKDI

beas So 1O3 for 1031. 5 Br So m« ^a. « Thus Ma for Ar. hto¥ \» brio
= boatO; Br blB^aa So bieaa. ' Ar. »eab« ]» "from taking hold,

seizing". 8 Br nttWB. » Br 033 p DWrt n»» 1»K3 So p D»3T^

B33 Ma + B33 p. 10 Ar. iT3J> 1« Br U'J» MDD11 1« Ma fjn HIBD 1« So 25

VJJ> KOD^ 18. According to Ar. 13'J? is to be construed like IT, as the ob-

ject of baaa.
Bi1? nns by.
is Br f?«»a».
20 Br

" Br So
Br oo^n UK
» Ma So

r n.

Br ntten 1
4- TP 'no.
28 Br So

n Br wvb nvv n»«a So
is So > ny. " Br > ^3 n^».

" So + m. « Ma > »awn ^fi.
trn no j>nj «b nw«3 So
23 \fyy , . . «vni for Ar. n
Br Ma So + vh after neb
26 Br inwps? by TIBJW rpn

2» Br ,Tn «in p 03 m "3. 30 Br Ma > TV.

Br 30

2* So Wi»p»l. So > by. K So
2? Br nann b&zb So

3i So

32 Ar. rhvrat. Br b = Ar. ib "if". Ma ^Ki. 33 Ar. = r\nbv 35
Br So Ma onnte. So n\nn. 34 Thus Ma = Ar. pf?un «b pb Br So

nn*w TipT1 p. 3* Ma 715 m n\m So 7121 ton rr-ni. 35 Br
So (B«» trasn nan. 37 Ma nsn Br »3B3 ,T,T. 3» So
Ma > ba. <o Ma

49 n pfi trpiB rniet?

rrn 2p iron

Kin ino\-6i ante K^> it?Ka 5itwy^> n;a iron
,9uonpnt? no s^> nniDi psa K^a by »rrn m
laom ,"man ^ao anvnaa no iny^oi njne tow ,*op pyn
5 ^niK-aa nasty 102 "-raw ^ nn^y i^_yi aama 12rn IPK anan
/ui i^ noanni nan uoo rnsyi an ^tntr sia ny mn
nnvi «^i naa^» ™yra\ anTnaa ane nn\i *

nawnn p ayio^» nr ^y arA a»n wiy iTm ,»nman nta
nriy pn p nn^> 'ifco rrvw no i»»iiyn p nn^v
10 iymm nr a»n 21<wa naai ,an^ «^» «in nauwin p
in^Di im« nawo n\n naV BJCSVI^ 22nsn (TH
anipn DDOH ^>v 2iit^i^ nni« 2*«^in ny run
,27'^i sai« p mar TOK ^un n« aai ,26)^y
,ana ipnnni nawnn p iy:oi p fyn nawn n^iy rrn
is nai Tmoyn n«r nnya atom ^s'^i ST n« ^nn^sy nny
an«n tyiys a»rw now n

ntn abiya ^iys a^oys fwiyn mjw rrrr n»M moan

» Ma > na» zh run. 2 Br So -p*«- 3 MSS. edd. one. uoa

20 "of him" = AT. ruts which context requires. « Br So D^niaio nm.

s Br So p nn« D»IJ> 7«i. e Br So > WD ^31 Nin werfti. ' Br

So ntra rm. » Br So b. » Br So + wwn. »<> Ar.

irisn V«n^>« D^ ]« -pi \lb. Mss. edd. > Ar. 73 "it remains" == 1«»3. The
V of fK» points to some word that has fallen out. « » Ar. nai N^ inp

25 "without force or constraint". « Ma 113. « Edd. ^W D

l1Di "and they placed upon them a heavy yoke". l* Br So ltt«3 "WN3

Ma > nwaa. « Br + n»nn, «» Br So yra pi man ^a» onTnaa.
t7 Br So > nrnan no nn^r rwn «^>. See n. 16. p man ^a» probably a
misplaced equivalent of nrron , , . vk\ »» Br So ^irr». '» Br So

30 D'Wiiyno. 20 I. T. > Ar. Dna«pJ> "fii ]H "that this should be their

punishment" = DB>1J> nw. " So lfi». 22 Br ran D'«». 23 Br

So + mrrK ]"«o mno after D'taw. Ma ban So one« for D3»«i. 2* Ma
w^n» So iN'Sin. 25 Thus Ma = Ar. napjr }»• Br So uvwb. ™ Thus
Ma = Ar. nt5K^« ^i« ^s bxp NO3 mpnfi^K nne^B; "bj> Br So DDHD mp» no by

55 naw rrtsanty nfia (So maw) omap^. 27 So + bvu iwana i«ss a-nw.

2» I. T + nana ^ep n«i -jniN i«i. 2» Of. c. IV, p. 28, n. 17, and below
p. 55, n. 10. wbv jnpib \>*i = Ar. ny«a» «3C»!?'1 «bi. a« nawnn p
= Ar. a-UV «^> ]«a "in that he does not repent". So nawnns
3' Br So mna^ vo»r »bt. « Br So i»» w «in Ma xnv. " So
d

n pna D"piB

48

a jn nvn? jnn
jn ana rrrw s& b
pi ,1^ jnia j
ma 3

Dpi
rw
mnsnn
li1? )s
rpn

mina

pi ,-inT

12

i n?
pi ,

inTnaa 2e^« ,,Tp&6 nn
i (i5i DTOYO iina nan D

nn na«a 31

ma

rrn pn* nvn> nsn ;rn
rrn & jn niv6 ran

35nt

po p

mn nj?n 10

,p^ I3

2<>vni n

nnn ni^bpn orvty i^ni is
,rnav»

i Ma "Din n»n Nbi Br So ntsNtsn nt 'ise Kbi.
So A y^D, * Br So DIDN. s Ma > -W.
"itwn for -iKBtti. Mi + »^1, s Ma So lp»2.
D«. n Mi D'sn vn. 12 Br vrtx for

« Ma SUM. » Edd. + p«n nsi "n^x nn«.

na n^»sa "towards him shall we do and act".

2 So + p^nsi. 3 Ma

e So > vbs. 7 So

9 Mi DmTlM. " Br 25

Br Dwerr» So ooon^.

15 So '& ^3. i6 Ar.

" Ma

!3 Ar. *wv "transgress". Br So nni« niap^» Ma »"» n«r». Originally
"liartf, but incorrectly copied liayty, a natural mistake, as niay^ is used 30
so often here. It then became necessary to supply an object. 19 So +
20 So vm. 21 Ma + ona. 22 g0 ^n» nw. 23 Ar. na0.

24 Ma

+ '«a» (oa So

-f- o

irY3.

33 *f{yft

3* Ma + •''ttN.

vvnam for ••maan

ioa.

si Ma Marion.
- -pB

26 So maj?^. Br ^« for ^a«. 27 Br

28 Ma DiT-ama = on^sna. Br Ma So

r nipo ]si»n ini«a »\ 3o I. T. + 35

32 Ar. nnpsi "and compare it" Br in»l.

au those who have spoken about it".

as Br So > nt.

"a.

36 Br So "pn nn».

Br

47

n pis D'p-is

jm

pyn nra toy ^nnu^ nn«

"in«i ,onB ^ yaiB jw mm? nno np« ntyyi ,yvn ai&n yr
:B^y^ vn te«i 6n?» np^i IT nte't? I»B« ,p
5 awn nitoyfi inTnaa rwyw Vfn m«n nwnnoa nr 7a^nnnty

wyin

p pnin^i ,«mtyBn
nn

10 pi jnn

n»

mp »^
nn ,i^
is na« ntBi ,22nna

yn

nan

a

nain

ai»n « jnn
ni2»n

rum
nna

nn

niana nn
pyn
TDm

27nra

ana

onB

Dt?n now

20 » Ma + mina i«a 1221, 2 Ma > V'i.
5 So Kin 12 KXD3 i»«. s Ar. rnSu^N nnn
absence of V**n from the text of I. T., and arbore in brackets in Poc., seem to

3 So iniM. * Ma n.
nitn = |»Kn nta npM. The

imply that

' Ma So a«nn'».

25 -On; Br «narg- _|-

Ma — Ar. n«T
12 So + n^a»n.
is Ma ba».
17 Ar.

was not originally in the Ar. Ma npVl Ma > nm.
8 Ma r«T»3; Br + |3 DM after HST. « Ma >

ni. 10 So iTH^I m!?&:M 1T^3»M inTHH. »i Thus

^NJ>BM now nw ]M So mbwsa Br ansn mbwea

13 Ma rvpjyns; So IWM for DM. n Br

Ar. -j^n1? iMrota^M mi "and he is the chooser in this".
win imi. Br So ""asm for mm « Ma > ^a.

30 19 Br So > nsp; So D<1p1DS)3. 20 Br nnab. 21 Diwa1? 13M D^"«1 =

Ar. Mna"aa^B -'and so we shall explain them". 22 Many edd. > Dna ... "O.
2s Br So n&MJW nts for ii»M. 24 i. T. + na» niND »2iN. 25 Ar.

nMin "thou seest Him". 25 Ar. on1? na *6 nins^Ma oni onapM» ^» 'M^B

"np Mtta Dnionano^ ]K "then why did He punish them, since by necessity
35 and inevitably they must enslave them as He had decreed?" Ma fiB^l
ntjaty loa nna na»n»a m»an nnsna ntw DIWJ? Br mana «!?ni D»3» nebi
itaa ona na»n»n d»n (naa So d»n (Mi mta) nitaa mana «^n D»a» nts1?!
-«a» ioa ona nawwn. 2? Ma nawnn; Br So frvk for nn.

2» Ma > iV«3 nbn ^a»n. 2» Ma .Tn11 ono; Br iins for mm. 3<> Br
40

n ps Q'pnB naie» 46

pan

to yjmrp ntyo^ naoo *pto wtew ny tea nt
nv,-6 mpt? pjna rkycb yjmiv t?an ^pbno pto te pi
pan ]B pbnn nt 'yjmnnt? nya nan DBW «"? ,ntyo!? nyyuno
anew 9Qsnyop o ^wen «ip!?ns ntai ,rmcb yynrw 5
pnn "j« ,iina« pe«i p rin f Ten nv nn« ny "DT ten
103 Ton DjntD ^ i2Dte onann "wtwMfl ,n<ity«*^n <io<i
fn nnn enn te pw ,11^^ «in rwyip nei rrrw «in iTnty
yin n^srn D^nsion "^3» IDI^ n^osnn 14iDisin nt ^BDT
nn mp nte "nna TJP» no» nvnV DHTIJ; «T»«I r»n n{y« 10
no nna

:2°p pyn )s«i ,trrnnin nny» n awm ^s» nv
n»a 22nno«oDi ,21in^n n^np amoa nain pvn nta
D^nnia 24nr/v nnnan tea n^on n«s»ni ,23^^ ^nioa D"?IJ? pyn
m«a ID«S 25-«n nt ^jn ,r\y nn« nyai nan nn« wa ]«in nno 15

DBnnty V"i a^si op
loip nya nny ren

nty 3op«n nt n^sia nny
asi man ,T,TI? ssa^n ns"i» i»a sa

SJ;D miM ;yyiin^ nsn p ,n^as« a ,nmn am ,34naipn 20
103 ,]no 37^ viio «^ nn^v ^ ^mao p« inn^naa ni^iyo
,-pn m*n \n ^opyn nt 3»nn«aD mo«i n^noan ssmwa
42ia ps-vw 4i»iTBn ovnnn n«sa naai ;ui jni 210 nv^ woo

» Ma -f nea1? nrv. 2 Ma «m. a Ma wn IM. < Ma > rtfo.

5 Br p^>nfi. « So Viv6 for w-'wn rmb. ^ Ma »»i3r>"». » Br 25

D-p^in. 9 So VWDtf. I" Ma ]1S1 W. I* Ma So WIW». «2 Br

+ 13. 13 Br 10«3 -WHO. «* Br tt^^n ^"B^. 1° Br So ^»3 »3.

16 Br So -WK oil. " Br 'nan ona n^ I»KB So avon ona nr» no.

is Ma So ]«in ona. " Ma «nnn\ 2» Thus Ma = Ar. rnn ND"?B

•j'na D^I |«b« ne no« ruN n*B fe 'iay nto npibw "B. Br lain annnn i»«a i« 30
p nain v«i »nnna nn»» D"«nn iatsw TIWH nra So TIWH n»a wnnn11 i»«ai
p nann yw cnnnj nn»» n Q'«nn iawir. 21 Ma unSw. 12 Ma So

2s Br ^W. 2* So n"J> after DMX&m. 25 Br ^>»l

. 2« Ma a«r»i. 27 So jwia. 2« Br o^wn So

2» Br «•? i»«a. 30 Br itn p«n So nwn pun. 31 So «•?. 35
3» Ma i^n nt. 33 So n yetotf nann Wav 34 Br > D»n So nsT»

w o»n. 35 Ma ntwp. 36 So ]W; Ma snats. 37 Br > i1?.

38 Br niinno nxann -i»«a. 39 Br So >,T\DNI,; m«aon for nn«ae. <» Br
+ Dio«a So -f- nibsa. *» Br t^i-vsa Dii-tfia Ma BMVBn ouinn mina.

<2 n ]«nn» = Ar. mnpn ]« "that its meaning". 40

45 n pis D'pnB

by in MWW TOM DK npa6 zvby yatioi n t?nai nniK ntfn IK
pyn jw ,nT3j>a nu naa nn«n m TD KJWI n^ peon nt jwrw nt
5iK3os p&n K"73 *nm irrrnaa niKan 3m«n ni^ya ^>a !?3K ,p
',-pnratKi rrnnn nwa» sit?n pnaa wn«a naa ^ finrraym n«on
5 p^nn nrai ,n»r 'OKVtfi rwjw n^na 9nna DIK"? TOK sm^vsa on

^e
p

,isnsp i« *]n« inrn »*p
no ^ao ^nta wsm ,i7in»t
10 : "wmioi m«n

n?a

25on mynrw

y 26nw «^» ntynty ID«I ,D^ait3 o^j;»n nn aiam
is 29naa^ pwn%» DTt6 28^i«i p pyn» inw ,ai& i« jn

no i&Ni ,iiis"ia yirsty nn« nwaym D^sonn p rwjw no

p n

u5? p w
34V| iy

20 DNsann nana 1:00 Kso11 nil m« ^a ^SK nn*neen no«en

m«n na^^ «im p

na

> Ar. HiN3 1« "or cheat him". See Ro., p. 68, n. 4. Br HDH, Br
25 riiin, hiphil of nv "oppress, maltreat, overreach in dealing" (HJN). * I. T.
> n!?Nts 'B == U1D03. 3 Br n»»rg. + on. •« So viTro:! nvibni ~b

pa for DH2 imTDS m«Dn. » Br »arg. ^. ni^l before I^O11; So

e So + viTnaa. 7 Ma nnratto. « Ar. ^yBN^N ••B Br

Ma So ni'jlPBa. 9 Ma > ona. »o So «!?» IK. « Ma Ta.

30 12 So + nhytb. u Ar. na pTT «02« ban hiK Dn^>1pB "and when they said
ban, they only meant by it". Ma ''in DiOK DsD»n T3 !?an So D'DWH
» Ma > pa. is Ma nspi. is Ma > n*n. 17 So Ti«n Br
is So pa. 19 Br Ma vninuoi. 20 Ma D^oan. 2t So TO.

22 Ma pnai Ta ^ax. 23 go + nir». ?* Br 'OIK. 25 Ma > on.

35 26 Br So im im 27 Ma ni»». 23 Br + ll? Ma + Kin. 29 Br

maabi pixiv6. so So im a"jm 31 Ma > -ie»i. 32 Ma So >

n» iriN. 33 Ma > mipmi. 3i Ma > « n» So 'n b». 35 Ma >

warn* bx bx o-'sa b>«. 36 Ar. aro1?^. 37 Ar. = ina'an msn

as I. T. > Ar. ^> = ^>ax. 39 Br Ma iaa. *<> Ma

n pnfi D'pis riMsv 44

ite nn ,invn

iwto /mum nom ano^m 2BUii»m teaman
nte D*wn nrtiyBP in pso p« IPK na«n n:o« ,«ttaa £ fMn
irnrp-o^ man ^ntea 'jwjr *6 mrv D«I JWJP HST n« t1? nmoa
n« loavn 9"pfi^ <nna ntn ia« ,sini^ <itn n\n nt 'asai ,vty 5
nnnai ,inai pin n«i nien nw man n

arm ,ona
a*m ^
p Da i»a^m ,ni^on i^iio^a «a» n» bi Dnwy1? n

npjna n^yi ^-IOHI ;"mina airoty ica n^3 «m»nn 10

noa /ui nentea m»s )s ,i»^aa D^
nta n^«^ain 23nsoai mina 22naim ;w

no

nwan m«n WPB nsp ia{ynsi DI« 15
^nte nti ,iTa sopaon nt nvn i« ,

nairoa

w «*? o»m nwo
n» pi ,

i Ar. hto»y\ b«nb rAa tnni "but this is wholly impossible and absolutely 20
false". 2 So mtwn&m n^Dtsifcn. 3 Ar. mm, read as noun nnm,

or verb Dim. I. T. construes as noun, Poc. and Wo. as verb. 4 Ar.

nVntyVN, generally translated by minn or mn. See Munk, 6rwde, I, p. 68,
n. 3; Holzer, Dogmenlehre p. 24, n. 6; Peritz, Sefer ha-Mitzwoth, p. 6, n. 1.
* So IVObl. e Ar. •jin p ^«»n "may He be exalted above this!". 25

^ Ar. tos' K1? »» ]N1 ^rB «» f«. Br So nSY «*? DM1 Ma *h D«1. 8 irm*1? , , . ^3D
= Ar. f\'fnfh» n\b ^l?i^B -^n ^» n^> inp «bl lai T3 p "without any constraint or
compulsion upon him in regard to it, and therefore the commandments were
necessary". So Wimyw. 9 Br uyisb. to Ma > DVn. »t Br + "int<<1
A 'ts« p So > nn run men n«i. « So D». « So > om«. " Ma 30
. I. T. > Ar. TWn^«1 "and the practising of". 15 Ma + Dm. is Ma
see p. 43, n. 30. n I. T. > Ar. pnbw = nD«n. So + man ^

wa. i« Ma So > I&NI. >» Br Ma So irroa , . , "PS for ^B* 'a
baian. 20 Ma Viann. 21 Br Ma > asu 22 i. T. > Ar.

«nj == nwo. 23 So *ianai. 24 Ma rwian. 25 So + T^»n n^». 35

26 Br So p Di tun. 27 Ma ntt1?. 28 Ma nann Bmybv. 29 Ma

JvaVfi. Jo Ma ntn iit3»n. 31 So n»M. 32 Br So «'n. 33 Ma
So nra&n. 34 So rfn. 35 Ma nrasn So !rra» mwn. 36 Ma ^»i\
37 Ar. nplD IK "or steal from him"; Br li&D 333 Ma > 1333 1N So + 13DO.

43

n ps D'ps

pits
miaan

\w DKI ,mne 2atep> wii^m innetowi ,iriBm
:pBD «te vTiVrvao aw te« ,3^»ni wpa pi
^oon «npa* na»« snwjttpn awnn *6a» nt
tya IK nty& tya vnwr m« T^IBP iaa>rwa nvnnwt
5 jrw 7Si« aiBN ,mana ann nvyen ty maio annnan ,jnan
VWID«» 102 r WDI^BBI irmwo
« ^ nnioo

10 m 15vn vmys y n"oio DT«n rrn i«i ,a nt
noa on«^ n^nn jw nn« mei npt? ten nvn iTnnnwi nmnn
te niD^i nno^nnni nioSn tow a^nno n^n pi ,

« DTNrw nn« "n^ea^ ten nt te i^iTni
nt D^iown ryi ^h i»yina innna^ rrnaen
is ,n^iiten men b **Tmmn ,n^iten neann isjnv 20snteoi /iiten
23«^»i ^i^nsp1? irmp ttoD «•? 22-1^: ^y p oi a»a^m ^oan rrm
nn inrpp mans nw nn« pwi^ a^iiinn pvoa* n?a» ,
p D2 )3n^ *]^«^ )iy»tr anij^i neb s

20 DBV nj; nte

2»p n: nitea vm ,

, « Ma 8W1 T"lSn |0. 2 Ma ini^2p\ s Ar. n33B "but with difficulty".
* So U1K3. s So nuiw»3. 6 Ma naar So npBr1 cod. 73 (see p. 42, n. 1)
VQD\ ' MSB. edd. "38, but Ar. ni8 (= rww), which should be emended
25 to 838 (= '38) rather than Heb. '38 to nnK. 8 Ma XTOB. 9 Br So W8.
»« WB' .. (Ma tf^fl) ... 81?! thus Ma, which = Ar. n^15' H313 3*183 p nb> ^85 8"?1.

Br So (Mi n&'tf) int5"t» Ws (Mi QDSP) iosy nbn K'30 8^1. »» So + |3.

« Ma ruiwn. »3 So > TO. » Ma nsn 18 p»x

»6 Br Ma ,Tn. " n^esbi bin = Ar. roj? "sport, play".
30 construed with nw «*?«? and mt 'n*?3D1 See Ro., p. 67, n. 1.

Ma = Ar. 318*3 ]o nun' '»8i3 Br \rbv yintt ini8 rms&n Diun "3BB. So > yin».

20 Br + rp vbv. 21 Ma n'3ibs nesnn So m^s nnsn So nruii. " Ma

blDi So miB3. « Br So p . . . p for 8^ . . , 8^>. 24 Mi 3UW.

25 H13115 = Ar. linpo 1133D "compelled and constrained". 26 Ma > ^.

35 27 Ma ViW^. 28 Ma nvt'. 29 Ma > p. 30 Ar. nKl8inDp^K

Vorsichtsmajh-egeln, see Friedlaender, Sprachgebr., sub voce. Ma m3U3n.

si Ma D»na. 32 Thus Ma = Ar. n^K "food"; Br So edd. pwan. 33 Ar.

13»; Br So n»3. 34 Br So or6 n»nn nn^n.

»» So

» Ma n'n.

1S n»B8 "H

»» Thus

rv6p inv rrrvfayB wm jnorb i« ntyio1? pi»
rrm Pirn 6^?« new WB 5m« rrrpao n

tsyo n 'mnn 7 ima
nr6

pi

nt "fyn ,

D« mn^ pie V'i "IIM "nwi ^saya 7is» naa nn inv » 10
noa np inv n^ itB nn«i ,2onnn»2 ina nw miain

i Thus Ma So edd. = Ar. n'JHDaw^ nit3B^« 'B "concerning human, na-
tural disposition" or "inclination". Br cod. 73 (see Ro., p. 30, n. 4; p. 31,
a. 2; p. 62. n. 1) "BTUKn won. 2 So nbnna. 3 So + 01*6. * nrna

. . ., thus Ma = Ar. KHTi b«S?B« p n^S> SlDK l^n 'JXSBX ]13n ^K3 Br 15

nibirse v^» rv\hp inv DHD nnxn m^s?B nvrn So ona nn«n W'JIPB nvm
^» n^pi nmp inv. » Ma rnxn. e Ma V». ' So

So > nt». 9 Ma hp Ma > vhy. Br marg. "jp> BJJO 12
V"?». 10 1^1 Dili1? = Ar. isBnVs "the memory". » Ma

12 mh rmh !?»3 »<«» = Ar. 'mba p» p "than a phlegmatic individual". 20
So hyyo for ^x?3 BTNB. 13 Br isien. i« Thus Ma for Ar.

(Poc.) nip ma n«nn «bi. Br vnmia niw xbi So rmns T\I»S «bi. "Wolff (p. 93),
unnecessarily, reads Ninn "properly guided" for IWin which, however, if
changed to iNnn, gives an acceptable Ar. form from ^ "to rise, be shaken,
roused or stirred" = I. T. Tf\y\ Poc. excitetur; "and his faculty is not 25
aroused", "stirred up" or "awakened". 15 Thus So edd. = Ar.

WK&K B^SK inn; Br SOBS a»n n» Ma apn yaan nt. ie Ar. nsi noj?3 "with
difficulty and exertion". n So b». »« Ma > Bye. i» Br So

nvr. 2<> Ma > mnea 4 , . V"»; Br nine So pso *bz for

41 t pis D'p-is

pm

, &ya ma naa :wn n"j>
nt

pi ,
10 tpnen n»n n«n^ Witt i»« pyn Kin mi ,

oven

)sn i^na^ •«?« an
nan amp ty na« Ds

So Haw. 2 Thus edd. = Ar. n»M '&. Br Ma So 1bS»2. 3 So
. So + itm Ma win. * Ma innann. * So pi 'n p

m«n. e So iniwts>. 7 Br So > De6. » So + p p.

» Ma

t p-IB D'plB miO»

40

VTBK ,DyDD nBi nKiaan *w& nn»n WJWTB rop

Ki «wam wets np^noo inKiai Kin K'aj DK 3oyi2n
,ioya 'Tonar ny oyD TOKa 6nKiaan UBB *nptoiDi TOK

nil JJUB sb inp 8nnjn

10*pv ty tiawvi ny to n"? U-OK aapyn? njKim nmKm 5
TBKI ,nmaK apy^ nn wn IBK i«na "ipaniff iy ,anipn nn

:nno» ^in lino K^K
nniK TDH «^ ns^no b
0^3 wtotwi "
IBKI ,

mn /m an«n

nna

21iniK
mip

TK

p ,ir6it ny

mnn

T»
vty

nt

-pne *i ,nj; ^na K mw
"wan ntws VT i»K3i
nnan n^ye u IB^W 10

now Kim mx Kin

is

ny 1

^aK K\nn
nvi^ Kin
p in^>ir Kinn

ITSO 20
im»n
f\r\r\w

2 Ma

3 Ma

» Ar. = nvrvnsn. Br Ma So nin^ns.

> o»wn Vs. * Br H-oni. 5 Ma njAnoitf. « uatso np^noi i»«
HKOin = Ar. ^ni^K m» ^N "who lacked" or "was deprived of revelation". 25
7 Ma Ton i»«. * Ma > nroi. » So apj?11 ^»». 10 I. T.

> Ar. ni2K •= 1:2. » Br -i»2nn». 12 Ma So Hainan. I. T.

i „ .

> Ar. iran n»D ]» rrnfi^H |»«-I3«^ nn«»!?K. 13 Tar^wm Onkelos to
Gen. XLV. 27: pni3« 3pjr nib n«iaa nn mwi. " Br nan So > nan.

s Ma m«»a. " Ma nibsfii. J8 Br 30

19 Br tnian So v'»n mian. 20 Ma

21 Ma > iniK So vb«. 22 So nwmn bstwi.

" Ar. ;» --iai "and he qualified, defined". Ma +
by, probably = Ar. \v. *& Br Ma > ib. 26 Ma nplpn. 2T Br

Ma + mi3j»a So + iniK n«n irK» n»«D I^BK. 28 So ^«. 29 Ma 35

'BK. 3» Ma |n D'-ejBb ba«. si Br + ib. 32 . . . Kin

iniK»»o = Ar. miii nns p bsn11 |K in. Br initose nnso«D m«n n^T KNT Ma
imw-'so noiND on«b ,Tn"» Kin So iniK^fi nna« m«b (Tnn» Kin. DIK or
probably did not originate with I. T. »3 Br > »BJ3. s« Br n

« So + ri"v.
n»no So v'»n nine.
> initcsa nn^tsK by.
13 So Kinn. ,

39 t pis Q'piB

Dan
Kin

B*IB« Kim ,T»y pcnoon

pi ,1*? Benson «^ n»a 'aw &6i net ^ e^mit? nan ^ p^so^
5 nsyni njnn Ilssa rnina avira V'l Jinan ionise »p oa «in

nnon

nno

10 n^« ^y 17«fci i«ao n»«i ,m«nn an nwan ni^ysD nn

"I&K 1s«<iai n"y in pi
na »a» «"?ty i9s"j>Ni ,

2o-n«^a «a ^>a« ,^mi^^ pnn
,ain» na an1? ^m1? 23vi7a si«n rpn «bi tynpon
15 in^Ka n«sai .^nasty n^ai anrr sa SD^ 27nsa naan

nnsiaa 29na B^BBW B"y«i niitiin nia V't

i"?

an ,ona «sva
20 Ti^a 40^^ IK nna

ia

nn»n

i Br Ma canni. 2 Ma Kin W«n So + ^D. 3 So

25 « Br + m. s Br V'll. e Ma pa». 7 So ltn\ » Ma pi.

a Ma > Kin So wn p DJ. «> So n^jjen. " Ma <abi. " So

iibK. is Br Ma nfoyb. " Ma imnna' So innns\ » I. T. >

Ar. K^N. i« Br > N<3in. »7 Ma So -f !?3. »» Br

Ma + ^Nitf1 \nb« So > KOi n"». « So B"»«. 20 -iitca «a = Ar.

30 p; Ma > -MM. 21 go ^iie. z» So wiann. 23 Br + pi.

2* n6 . . . ntpnt? = Ar. unpon n11! ]«<i»^ n^n«' D^ n^« |« "that God did
not consider him worthy of building the Temple". 25 Ar. r6 b»p\ =

b IBNI. 26 Ar. nns K^>. I Ch. XXII 8: Ds3i D'on -3 "»ty^ n'3 nisn «S

••ifib H2»1« n3BB>. M. often quoted from memory. 27 Br So JV3n. 28 So

35 -f- M»£. 29 Ma Nb« »Btf «Vty D"J?«1. so Br So n»K. 31 Br So

-j- ps1? onV nrn^i. 32 Ma So ib3. 33 Ar. ^WDW Bla + n"».

34 Ar. 3pn. 35 Br So instf. as So wva for i»» ni^iBts. 3' So

-f- DP w o»n. 38 Ma > rv'v. 39 So > one. *o Ma n^w So

+ ]ne. *t Ma njwD»n. " Br + in«o. « Br Ma > pion.

40 «* So

woo 3tn anvonai nwnoa *oo' nann

7 wan ram no«» ny ,rw«aaa nntya ^ o»n *?« onmp ^ mojno
DIDK Kim nrnto note rrvTO nn« rnrno ^nnwD o»n sn«n

5

niwnc pe niwnsn pi ,nno
ana »»nno "nwriB )nei ,niiann pnni ,
]m ,fft nonm fpoon nan«i ,nirym ,oyam ,nnm ,ni«m ,ni«nn 10
wwnsn I^KI ,7Oin pisa anjrra mon wiat nasi ,i«o nm

pi an«n )^a ni^iaon nwnon on

nwnon on wot» i»a ninn « nm

i IB

niptnni nnon

"concerning the partition, or wall" = Ar. ajnta ^6 "concerning
the veils, or screens". See Munk, Guide, III, 56, note 3; 459, note; Geiger,
Was hat Muh. aus d. Judent. aufgenommen, p. 81; Steinschneider, Mai-
monides1 Maamar ha-Yihud, p. 21, n. 44; Ro. p. 113, n. 5; Wo., p. 48, 20
n. 1; Holzer, Dogmenlehre, p. 38, n. 157. yi», "meaning". So Ma rPi'»l.
2 Ma rwnoii nnina. s Ma Br>. < So p ty». s Ma p.

6 Br in«ts. 7 So n"JWB. » Ma + n«. » Br So in«o.

iO Ar. tr^p&Da. 11 Ma So > D^». « So > nMltSH D» K"1^pBD81.

is Ma So jwwn. " So Tnmn. « Br n^wtai. " Ma i«anii». 25

" Ma -f no. is Ma > nwn& . . . n^3D3. Br nin-'na. i» So rrnan,
20 Ma So > nton\ 21 Ma pi. 22 Ma DDYililJW So DiTmaw».

» Ma pi. 2« Ma H33na. ^ Ma "in«V. 2e Br So -f ^3.

27 Br So > Dfc.

37 i p-iB n-p-iB naiet?

rial

vnpn ntyn D«np itr« nn

5 nniK wip n»«i /tti n^ntran "pym ,nan« nis pa ,7)

no ^s

p awn
nn ^Bn
10 witt 19no^i 18>i2Di /71nm«nty no njr&K ^y mio

jpisn nt

i Ma > ntm nai. 2 Ma onnan. s So V(n«. « Ar. yw.

5 Ma nn D^IMS. e Ma ]W\. 7 Br ona. 8 Ma + nn.

9 Br So nan. « So + ^. " So nt. 12 Ma p. «s So >

15 *6p. « So ppinew. » Ar. nosa taayi = iwaa ^wa^; see p. 36, notes
5 and 31. 16 Ar. a^"» p^Bini "and a wonderful reconciliation". " Ar.

. Br inianfi«». ^ Br Ma naa. 19 Ma

i pns o^nc naio» 36

3 8^8 nt nn *6i ,iaaa Vna nsr nana 2^nan ^a na«i anann
aa itoaa ny* 211 ^ bna waaa ^
ni8na m«n 48,-w iv* anp nta inn

p pya» )m m»« «im ,minn smoNn 5

nei

"nt nnnio ]n natwian n>nnn onoKan w «sBWBi plan «
Him ,^3 an^D «^n )s8i ,n»8 nmv ^8 ,15ppyn)w ,ntn«
^ ^a» na« i»« 17)n mjn D^iDi^sn ^8 )n T»« nijnnt? 10
nn a vw n8 »na*i nn^8 i»ni«n^ ISB awn

om ,i

rap nni8 i«ip^ ,26pro^ 25vn n^8i nnaa *6 248^8» 15
pun ]^8i ^sni^D^n n«an ananan
8V nawnn »san»i ,n"ion «\T» 1^8 ppin»
anann ^a« fana nyaana 29*iyasn 8"?i ^a myin 180 ia* nwnn
ibiDii awn 32"inv ana 31njp »aian» soa^aann on^j? natw
rn «V minn 8VaV8{y n»8 nti ^snrya^n nmnn an ,^na 20

na« nt nsai ,^a

n"y anaan nai minn 378{?8 ana jw»

9^8 na«

» Ma > ^3. 2 Br !?ni». s Ma So IP. < So nrr6. s Ar.

HDB3 B3NS = l»Bi3 ^0; see n. 31, and p. 37, n. 15. Ma > nvnj^ . . . Nnn?. 25
e iTHtni . . . Nrrw = Ar. ]« Kinai nosi B3«s |«D3«^N \\y \» "that man should
govern his soul, but they forbid that". Br So VTlTruntf IV. ^ Ma B"»K.
a Ma (T>D«. a Ar. ^«^m |n ]i»ot» ]an "in«. 10 Br bib. » Ma

> wsx s« a^nn n»3 "jDN1?. « So "B^>. 13 Ma So 'awsB. »* Bi-

nt, is Br -J3. is Thus Ma = Ar. *i«^3 "diversity". Br So npbm. 30

" So > )n. is Br So mNn&n ;o. i» Ma So nVui TOJJI. 20 Ar.

]"^«1^X. Br So DM D.N. 21 Br So nBNff. 22 Br So Dn^y.

23 I. T. > Ar. D«bobK DiT^y. 2* So -fy»vf. 25 Ma So nn. 26 Br Ma
So yny^j. " So o^wsnn. 23 Ar. rfapj^K r«iw^«. So rise.

29 Ma nyasnn. so Ma o^Dbn. si Ar. noBil? D3t«VN ]« = wsaa ^icnw; 35
see n. 5, and p. 37, n. 15. 32 Ma > one. So -f- xin. 33 Ma ton for
on. Ar. JTOBD^N »*Ki»b«. 3* So m«. 35 Ma D». 36 Ar. toa\

Ma So n\T. ST Ma So pi. 33 Br l^»»n», later hand. 39 Ma VN.

m< n« wawn pi ntojmn Tonn p IBM Bne

en n»
nijnn

«ini snmtan rwy^i ,WBI nittni im«ni vnvo

no nn« lo^ivBa T»»i win
neaonai ,12)n^« rpm m«nn «ini

vi awn
Toro
i ,jnn

10

m

innaw ne^ 2sm«i 27D^ain

,pyn 3°nD D^oan nan
is ran^« nwn» «^> nsy«o D^ invi awn viv nn
inn awn inr sigr^n nw I»K te» ne«» ny ,onmna
nta w^am ,^ni inv pmna nytwni nway^ inpwn 32,Tnn

Ar. title nosa^ »n«s^«i &tt&ta p pis^M ^B = Vwiisni Tonn p i»«

. See Ko., p. 92, n. 8. 2 Ma > WB33. 3 tWWn

20 Ar. H^M&^M. Ma Q-'awnn. *-Ar. n«T^« = D^tsn. « !?» p^n —

Ar. *)btO "differ with, disagree, object, oppose". 6 Ma So ^K. 7 Br

> vh». s Br marg- niaiBn ntw^i. '» Ma nn^K nvnoo. «o Br So

in^ws^. i» So > vh». « Ma > V"i"^«. 13 Ma D'BDi^anD.

u Br TDn». « So + it?B33. «6 Ma + D'&unV'&n ia. » Edd.

25 wsaa b»i&n» no« ^a«. »» Ma tois !?N. »• So > imx nww.

20 Ma npwn». »t So wsaa. 21 So n"»n». 23 Ma > IB«.

2* Ma »i. Js Ma nnetr. 26 Ma + ^. >T Ar. j»it»^« = miwr.

2« Ar. pB«iab« "agreeing". 29 Ma + ^y. 3° Ma m ^»y. 31 So m«n.

« So + ini".

n pis n'p-iB MIB» 34

,J?BD

4«in nn ,DsDty Dty VJT
mn na^'^wi inw«i» no iijptf mi ,pnsn ma

imonpnn

1 Ma So nbKitf. 2 Ma rb*.

» I. T. > Ar. MnsDO1?** rnn "B = unseen n«ta. < Ma in».

33

naai

4)vy nnonna natwian
ny nnaan
poynn1? »p m
s ,"nw^n moo w» ny
m

10

n pis D'pis

n«a rm V't ana« Kim ,maann bifi nat

anann

p ,nwn wo1? aw TNI »sri row?
Damns'?
pan

"nniani
DTK nws
nino

nanna
,19n«o

nannen n«tt? jrn
nn«i

«in.n nann

inn

naai ,29« n« nan« «im nnx nan moo
^ei onjn 7ann ^aa na«i p m 31pyn m
20 s"v« na«n «vn n^an «inn tysb tr»n» V'n nn^ay nan1? I
nnspa ^a pj^n nt rry D^oan i^a naai ,nn« ns» nn^ay ia
n«o na^» n«nin yn nt to ^y nnia
nt

Br

Br

"Vtbrh. 3 Br l?»ni. Ma

25 Tiarm. So -n»m. * Ma \>y<y Ton na. 5 nnttj?n "turbid" =

Ar. n2»S^«, "difficult, hard". Br edd. nnwan. So > nnw»n. « Ma *|U.

7 Br So W1W3. s So TlX. 9 Ma > p Di. 10 Ma )r»3.

11 Br w^n. 12 So + iin. 13 Ma «Diini. So -|- «nmnan '!?» ne« nn.

14 So l^K. Ma rwn. is Ma n«Wj> So iTtW. is Ar. '3«1«VK1 =

30 D^am. " Ar. 2K"fil7«i = n^iam. is miem == Ar. rww "and

difficult to reach". Mss. edd. miOHl, which goes back to a very early
scribal error. is Br 1KB 1NO. Br > ^VU. So > 1NO.

20 So -ox. 21 So !?na IK pep. 12 So > nai.

23 Ma n^a ^>K. 24 Br !?arfin. « Ma Ka\

26 So Kinn Ma > K"nn. 27 Ma So > inw tm.

28 So > tvbyn. « I. T. > Ar. TH'JK. So v'»n.

so Ar. OKW?K Dn^J) «^3KbK "the prophets" etc. 3i So >

« Br > ii»Ki. 3S Ma n&Di nsp TK.

3< Ma i^>Ka owyn So ^a nnwm.

35

n pna D'piB naiat? 32

nina a rwerv Ha. nwn 2 inK>3D ^oni IBII Jnwna ia
nityoa yiiD s^ao WBI poynni ,Dnste *)iin na« nn TBPK t?Bin
,nijnn pi nioann p «ime^ no to pi ,nvte»n nityoai nnen
noi ,6Dna-n p n »p« ,KYin n^anV 70 jno Kint? no
,D^nnn »IBDI ,patwin smteBO K<nn n^ana ^ ntyin 5
nanni "D^p»en ro^m /ononinte w^wwo nmn^i
nsieni wa ^s»n nan ^nni ,te»n 12mr6 nna miian rrm
nt i^ nwi ,VI^TO 14sns^n »pnn njrr pip on«^ isy^^
pi ,a0n nw^jno nn^o« "ny^ nn JTCW
wsia prn nms i« n^jnn in WBI^ w«^» noa «"?« ian^ 715 10
i« 2on^D i« n^yo nat^a IK n^yaa IK noana IK ,IBIIO 19iK
rm* DK niiJ^ onan niinonn sl?j;a n^p ^ ,niu» 21i« nm
6i ono ipnnn^ TV Qi« ^a *?SK D"iDn^> ia
wyea 'n11 HBK n«"in K^n ,n^jnD KNHI a^ina Kin

^ n» bi D^non IIDDI ,22)jtt3 p« ntyy»ai is
no pi ia niiian pK an^ini o^aien natyi ••KII'? man ninnonn
/(n^Kn aoitsn 711 24^nK DTK 'i

^ piyn nt ^K pan? ^ ^ ,IKD nann inoxoo
nta i^ia11 28K^> DK Dvi^Kn ,maa ant Dipn nity^ IK anta D^nan 20
rrnn» ny wnbn moo ^^nTi ,«nan» na WBI

1 So 12. So nitnas. 2 Ma V»i. 3 So ^no. * So

5 So [p«]» nea bnn'-w ••s ^» «|«i. « onan ...]"« = Ar. rr*

7 Ma So + 12. s So rtww. 9 Ma 1BD IK. 10 Ar. n

"geometry"; Br no^an^K Ma KOTinto So nman b« edd. noiann ^>«. « Ma 25

n So + onn. is So -f 1^. u Ma nsien. 18 Ma
for TIT nt. is Ma ris^T pp!?. » So ^ama. 18 So wa11^.

>» So > IK waaa. »o So i^we for nbwts IK. ai So > IK. « Ma
So > |»aa ^IK niwaai. 23 So + iiaots. s* So ^UK. J5 So •>a-no.
is nnn d'jnn . . . H^KH aitsn = Ar. TK^IK . . . "^IKH. 27 So + ^K. 30

28 Thus Br Ma = Ar. N^K Sr&K "unless, unless possibly", Lane. So DWH
N1? DK D\n!?Nn ; edd. K1? DN D'Kan, D"Kan being an attempt to correct the mis-
understood trn^Nn thought to be an adjective modifying Vliaa; cf. Ro.,
p. 109, n. 1. See on this passage Bacher, Gedenkbuch Kaufmann's, p. 193.
See also Saadia, Emunot we-De'ot (ed. Slucki) p. 32, and further p. 115. 35
where |K «"?K DH^K = Heb. 'D. Cf. Moreh, I. 76, Second Argument: p
'ai n^nn Kb DK (edd. n^n^Kn) D^nbKn anann; II. 22: a^wn «|ni»a ban
'31 IttK11 »b DK (D7l!?K n"i); and Scheyer on al-Harizi's translation of this
passage; also Munk, Guide, I, p. 453, n. 4, a moins, par Dieu!, and Ibn
Daud, Emunah Ramah, p. 53. 29 Ma prTVI. so Br mjtt. 40

31 n piB

nnb vty 2vnjmn DM pi , lorfc nwne Di«n Bfiat? ,ma*ijm
waani maaa *tos&ni ,nw ^oai owan njro^a rrvDs
men TID^I psan avrw noo 6nta *«vai rosvi nrrcrn mam
nwoa nanan ivtem ,»ia s^w? nt ^aa naiiam ,naoo
5 iwiD n^an r?rr "peon mapa poyrwa pi ,naan

no V

"»pnn nt

]o miay nnirpai rrna^ H\TI nwosn ^nntonn ^K y^anai ,
10 wri^VB "iV^a na sa , "nnaam nan«a r« n\in «bi ,m!?nan nniayn

ni«n» on« tysaty mn aia ^nn ?K anj; pto
nt ,owns nin-'D^ i« n»p ^in^ nao iTiT»
«in Da»« ,22 Q^ «^n nty«o m«n ^>yis nt
15 WK ^y» n\T Daa«i ,iei

p«oan te*n anyn

pi ,inB vn^ysa m«n aa ntai njnn VIB 27nn

ptan

20

nt nnaty iea o ,TDH nt p«i ^aV 3«n^nn p inie^i isia nwna
won 32n«an i« te«on n«an 3lnn«n nt ina ,ni«nan rwan
no

» Ar. WBnofi^K nTn^N rpn»^H nfi»B^«3 "by appetising, agreeable, and
25 palatable food". 2 Ma TYIWVT. 3 Thus Ma = Ar. '1K11D 0^3 "black
gall". Br mvw mno So (t? mo edd. minty me. * So tonsai. 5 So
. « Ma So era. ' Thus Ma = Ar. xi\tbx nmoi Br ••bin

mnen So edd. min»n man ^n. » So + n«. • Ma > IBW.
»o Br So yi»» map^. " So msiapa. »2 So -j-nn. « So n«i&in.
30 H Ma nrfcsn. « Ma > mman) So nnwsi. »« I. T. > Ar. »ib«j?s«

= liT^ws. »7 Br So mne«n. i« So «a"». '» ib . . . »B3» =

Ar. Vit» "appetible". « p^ttt = Ar. ^'l» nso "unwholesome, and harm-
ful". Ma 1^ pno. 21 So namm. 22 So + bw Vw. 23 Ma >
«in. 2* So TI for o^n ton. '» So nenaa. z« Va«'»a for Ar. Nns
35 ^it»n "when he takes or reaches for". 27 Ma ™arg. n» ^Wtsn . . . na!?.
28 Ma > nt. 29 Ma any ba«. So rv^an. so Br n^Vnn p So
at Ma > nn«n. 32 Ma > n«in. 33 So

no 'BD 5njnn o wei niro

pnsa

man

nnan
pten p -maty nj; na 2'n«inn « inira t« rrnn « »pnn nt "jyi 10

inwn nahrw 35I1DD 34ni«iB"in noan pi

1 Ar. ij^isn 'S. uiy0 "to turn, change direction" ; Lane "employ", Poc.
dirigendis, Wo., Ho., Richtung, but here rather "employ, make use of, as 15
I. T. 2 I. T. -j- mn3« onnn. 3 Ma m«. 4 Ar. mino* "subjugate".
Br TMW So Tin* Mi. Edd. napKr^, sAo/e^ of nay, "subject, subjugate".
» So nunn. « Ma "as^». ' Ma n1*^ Rim. » Ma So -f- Ten;

Poc. + semper. 9 Ar. b'n w n^« Ma n11 Kinn. " So > V'l. »» Ma

So WI»D1. u Ma So n»^. •' Ma W\ »* Ma ni^PBts. 20

I. T. > Ar. nin. is Ma SO\ i' Ma m. i» Ma So WwnW31.

So mtnaa. 20 Br So D'a^an. ^ Br > nupi So nwpV. 2J Ar. ^
So niosnn. 23 Ma > niapi. 2* Ma w^ern. '* Ma

26 Ma mi. 27 Ma n«an^. »» Ma nnwm. 29 go

rwnann. so Ma > ,T,T. si yv vbz == Ar. ma "hateful, disliked". 25

Ma + Kb. 32 Ma pa. ss Ma -f- «"?«. 3* So niOB-in. ss ^3
for Ar. ]« ^ro, I. T. evidently having correctly read \o instead of |K.

29 n piB D'

n'n & -pan* imioyan unaNBn as»n iwpaa w DVD atww jnv
,2pyn nta v6« naia DJOP TV ats6 titrco *6 IWIJKI ,ojna

: SDTJD n«i ,myn n« n^p^ni ntson n« np
« nowity rrnnn ^BDO pso liinn V2« ny^n raioo ii«ss mm

5

Ton VWVB w Diwn nwao 8<|D

inn

10 invws2 n«m nait "vmmw D»n D "now v^y nnDi pyn m
•pi D^ 14*opn h* ,D\n^« isy»^ ^«n« -JTT nan io«i» na"pn
nn UTWD n»« pyn inn ,«iaDm nwn «in i«nowi ,15>p
nn ^Tnsty inw«"i» no -njw nn fnwa

« So w«i. i I. T. > aia t6i. 3 Ma > DTM . . . jvp»m. 4 So

15 Ma nm. * Ar. p»«% imper. "compare". 6 Ar. nv. So TOJP.

7 So WI3 b«. s Ma > ^3. 9 Ar. m» KD ^KJ^I "and lie will procure

what is with Him". »o Ma n^oan So + In. " Br > 110«1. « So

+ (Mi oa) 'nn rriwoi. 13 Ma nj?iBr«2. i* Thus Ar. Br Ma So npn.

is Mss. edd. DPI K|?K DBn. »• Mas. edd. nowm or rm-wn. " Mi

20

piB o-'pia njustf 28

2nimnBn nnon wy n^? D^ pi ,irow 103 jnn n^yo
3iionpntp 103 To
pimi Kin n33 noK 133
,6)310 )ono m^a»n nityo^i nnon
K^> naya )n "IOK ,snain nna m

cno

s£5 nK nnno ntyK >v /aanipn ^ owoKn K? )r o»n IK TDK
Kin rry "iKem to m ,sniK Dn^^p K^ I»K ^y ,13nnno '•oa 10
Kim nnan "ni^yoe n^yeo 15ni«pn ]o THK ns^
;wi onion *o iyoty no«n niitm ns1? nw
)s«ty oipon ^KT»S my ^ oyo imaa DTK
Do o»n Wn Kin Kinn »^n "pa ma

mn n^iyn "nn^n ^>K nnn y^nb D^JJB vm 22ono^ 21vn nmoi 15
,i:iK3tr IOD ,jnn ni^iyso Kim oyan 24i^y
nnno ™\*W* nex ^ '^Bin nuDno njn
^o ny vto\ 2'D^ao ay we mn K^ Kim ,
nrwi nm»ia» naapn» ns»iK ny

y* IK TDKV no hy\ ,nsoDnn **raw 103 nia 2o
32mo nimns i*? )^K 31n"y

i Mi VUBD. 2 Ma nwn&n. 3 So

« AT. y«p3 ]KD3«W p"1 ]« 12 «V n« "since necessarily man has vices".

KS&V Br on marg. later hand. » plO ]01tO = Ar. «n»fi; So ]31D pa Mi

7 Mi nsoa. 8 ^>«p ^^^ «n"B vo nps «'33«^« ana «e« "as 35
to the books of the prophets they say much in them concerning this".
9 I. T. -f rtinn DV vas^oai. »o Ar. noi. " Ma + owaan. " So

> -O3. 13 I. T. 4- narws naa ^ n«. >* Ar. naini nbo «in; So wen i!?3 nt
V1B1. » Ar, dual. t« Ar. ^«iB^8 p H^B p. Br Ma > r6»t£> So nto»D^.

" o»n l^p p^p^ = Ar. rrV» nbb« npj, "God blamed him". Cf. infra, c. VIII, 30
p. 49, n. 29, and p. 55, n. 10. is Ma DM. »» p3 = Ar. pn 'B

"with regard to", Friedlaender, Selections, p. 113, note to p. 51, line 3.
So »inn isr-to for «inn »s»n pa. 20 So vninantsi vm^j?Bia». '» So

> vn rna-roi. 22 Ar. 'a nnp« "imitate". " Ma m»rg. nn^>sn.

2* Ma > vto. So 13. >s Ma + 13. >« Ar. '3, Mss. edd. 'B. 27 Ar. 35
DKW "laymen, common people". 28 on!? n^SB *6 ]» «^1 "and those who
did not possess virtues". 29 So invottf. 30 Ma Mi NB». 31 Br

3» Ar. pbb n!?n-> rrt p in «D. So rtv. 33 Ma So

27 T p^B Q'pns

nspn p pwn 2p VJKI ,n»ian Mian ijpani nnyn won
3 lion -nan *6 /w irvny n« roam rrain new nanan an V'n ;nn«n
/jraoNn TYIS *nKaw p DJ nanan an men? ny /w
lea ,Dnann ȣK ty *pmnV ^man pao
p IDW» ne ^y

3 ]w ,ni^yan p

nanp rrrp "n^vn ^1 nwipnn »^jn snip^n p
p KJPI «^n«n nspn ^« jrm jns Xs? «im
«Vsi inr ^a snv»ty K^ 13iai pyn ma
10 D»SV ^»y ts^apen nina nan omi» y^nn pnsja «anv» ^ai
"•n^K ai ,jiB6n ma DBT n»« ,nmo« «pya nwy^ ny D^nii
IDIK nnK» K^K is.Tnnn 17>]^ mofctt? "HD 7^ K^ prer ^n
nwa 2°irot T»K v^vn 19Kin nn ,tnnK nnan

jpnon

15 m^yan ^K pa^ 7*017 plan ma vnyiarc no ^ao aiiKann mn
nKisnn ns by vb* ^rmspn p nsp ^K JHD «

y ptnnn!?

vrbn 2<riaK» ia«ty yrwai ,n^ana npm
20 is ,«inn 25na«n »msw ny i
Ten wne "nan? 27^ 71* 2enn nn«n p ,

no ^ai ;DV DV wei niian pna^i vn^iya ^p
nynn miann n-^ K^I nKWia nn»s m«pn p

> Ma nmni Br rim. a So ^. 3 Br Ma nwn So "is

25 B-K. 4 So l«ttni. s Ma lb«3.. * Ma 11D«. ' Ma

4- "io«i». s Br So to; Ma mpix. 9 So wp5»n toi menpnn hv.

10 Ma pwr ^jn. « Ma nn nw»o Mi mwo. 12 Ma insn.

»* Ma > in. »* Ma Kin. » Ar. na» "like the appearance

of, similar to, a sort of". Ma p». i«a Some edd. 'fi*i. 1 6 Ma So naa.

30 IT Ma So > ih. is Ma So mm. is So > «m. 20 Br So irottf.

21 Br So + "ft. 22 Ar. dual. ss ^>« T«95r» == Ar. ^« i«nrr.

24 Ar. ntsoi «UJ?K p == isii na«D. S5 Ma -OK&. 26 obwn m«n •=

Ar. ^D«D^>« ]KD3N^«. "Wo., der Mensch, wie er sein soil. In support of this

translation, Wolff (p. 29, n. 1) says, So ist hier wohl sinngemaJS ^^^ zu

35 nehmen; "vollkommen" ware unpassend, da "Vollkommenheit" (im Denken

und Handeln) ja erst erstrebt werden soil". But Munk, Guide, I, 77 )«D3«

be«D = homme parfait. " Ma > ^. " Ar. "Hi «» !?3B "as soon

as he sees". 29 Ma nwp.

pis DspiB nutstp 26

nn&no ini« awiyt? no ansny w^ &w ,ana DM ^ nano
i7w ••ID , train rv\roh i\chn TTT ty «^« arwviKan piBBi
nvw ww pnsn nta 2inNat? no <sa ayo insn nsn ^«
no matt «^> minnt? Kim ,"wa« TOO 8ono niyta int ,p

na Vi na*an n«t ^BD «•?« rvmsv no nnns «^i ITIDKBP 5
te«en iiotw f*fcnnn *w ^ "inv nn«n nsn p
noi nahpn by nnnwm ,nmo«n «n
o«n ~^K ^sD^^ nnmo ny« nt b
103 ara imyioi ^awon oyo^ "wnnin SODH nw m ta njn
nwnn an nspo "pninn^ a»n inra Dio« ^ia 12nti ,pinioa 10
ny tsyo n«inn rwsvi mj^n TS •?« ywon p n«j6i ^ni pnn
:nnvnn nii^n i^nwaaa "pmnw
,nna»m ,&p^m ,nn»yen 15ni^nio mina» no to pi
anp D nt ,n»no n-npt»m ,^aw ^anaBf pi ,16rMiyni ^nsm
2<>pnn n^ain rwpo ™pn~bv TV "^ ai» »p*uvo 15

nina 24nia"ioi nnoo pty DD o«son nisen an
aipn «^> nowa Bin r6i«ai ,25nTtDim ,nospin ITIBK» 102
pi ,«nm Byan na vfcrvv TV ,Bpn apn ,airvn airv ,n*^
n-nm ,aipn nan? ••iso pi ,ni^an mian TiBnt? nv ,aa^n 20

« naa ;w |pt

Dessau, 1809; Groningen, 1845; Lemberg, 1876, have nJ5K2, with note
endeavoring to explain the passage.

i Ar. bns« = inv owa. 2 Br > no. So u-oi. » Ma WSJB ww.
* Ar. iTiH^K nni ^P "by means of the practice of good works and prayers". 25
5 So o^awan. 6 Ma mbwsn. ' 7n»n» msi = Ar. ij^sw "trouble,

fuss, ceremony". Ma -p!ttn» ntil. 6 Thus Ar.; Mss. n»K TOVO or

•WK nwro. Mi n»« roiroa. » Edd. nwipi nwx (or rains) nuiro 7ns».
>o Thus Ar.; Mss. and edd. nttjn. " lyniin ^tsan = Ar. «33«^«; Ma

So 'in. 1J Br Ma m. " (D pninn!? own inw = Ar. nsis« 30

^K "God prescribed it in order that we should go away from".
Ma > tam. WW (Ma) == rtSlB« Br So liW. "We expect prnnitf instead of
«* ptnm aar^nnw n» = Ar. rarir. "nn So a^nnnv Mi rrnra.

Edd. wnaa. »« Mi nMw BIBI. Mi mWw. » ra anp = Ar.

anp. Edd. |nn»a. i» Ma na^. 19 Ma pmw». 20 So pwi. 35

Thus Ma. Br So rrap^, see supra, n. 17. 22 Ma naiann. 23 Br ]ha.

m^iiei mnfi^b |rw = Ar. m*n np. See st*pm, n. 4. 25 rrvwm

Ar. DHpnwbH. s« Br lain ^ae. So ^aa.

25 T pis O'pns naie»

no ^a«s ,2rpy»D«n
Troop no

ronis6

nana
no nntw ,wa

nto rrvnrm ,»IBU niyn? *i sTosm Tya»n pat? *i ,nnnai
5 now ,a>wn ty N&n TBWD 12vty TBSI Tm HTD« ^nbapa Nap no

IDS

:noai nea firm

no

n«

10

nt ^n^y ity«a inn ^onn tyina naa«n
own na» a^aty nt T^^ai ^ona TIDDI anos
27p nn« ,o^nwn nn«i n^ai«n nn«
15 -iBK1? m«as « noK na
na p

ni nowm D^aito o^jno^i

20 vbvn nvT nna I^K nnon mtyo nn

nn 3ono«{y jrn
,^i»n pnsa

i Ar. KT3& "by nature". 2 So mttOMn Ma wtJ«n. » ib nwtsw no
= Ar. n^ NO. * Ma > ^irca hvt^h . . . nnwi. » So mvnoa. 6 a of

25 WTO = "practising" or "seeking". nilfiNI == Ar. *)K5»NbM "and justice".
Ma naiDKa So rui&Nai. 7 Ar. «|ina^K "caves". s So -vvm itssn.

• Ar. ransn DD^K '•pW ]« «^1 "and that he should not reduce his body to
destitution nor torture it". K> Ar. ^pi^N tOKi «02 "according to that

which tradition brings to us". " Mi 1BK1. 12 I. T. > ]ron.

30 13 I- T. + !?"». So V'n. Br > "01. «4 Br Ma > rn. So «b« for to.

» So 4- n-iBD -pi*. '6 Br "» ntn Ma •'D no So nt noi. « Ma Mi

nani. is lymin ••osm = Ar. «anjn» n«ini "and those who handed down
our Law". » Mi vn». 'o Mi ^y. 21 Ma 2«nn». " Mss.

and edd. cb\B but Ar. n«»^« 'B = nam "a year". Error goes back evi-

35 dently to I. T., who must have read D!?«P "Q or D^«JJ^>K SB = D^M. J3 So

> i^j). 2* Mi u6. " So »'aan iiT-otb -no« «im. 26 Mi '3.
" Mi ^^ inw. 2* iwra = Ar. b«nn»«V«a = rather, 'IIBD. " Ma

> nitox. so Ar. noun ]«. »» Ar. bbo^«i; Wa = "people, nations".
Ma maiOK3. Edd. Basel, 1804, and Slutcki have correct reading. Edd.

n piB D"pn& naiot? 24

vna p i ,ia*naya Drrnno IDBHO nns^ ny

,iT'y rPBV 4«^MH 31BNDD JH BIN B

n rh* wy a^Tanrw 'a^aan iNn "IP*OI ,«an:na rmy
,8amaa vim aatwia antot unai maia ant? ia»n ,nw^iD ijn^ 5

moi n^»yo DOSV^» wp orw
12 rani *jun ww n»n ^to ,11DB6 m«n

n^iycn I^MBP ^T «^ nm ,

DO m» nnaii nin ipt?nt? n^«Bnn os«^a 10
23^^^ ,^2 22^iiepD«i ,21nwnp^p tj
won p wteii n^no weinai p»n one ipoei

anw nnp^ ^nnni ,na ww
^in nn i^« p ,pso «^»a n^n

:w^"on hy n«is"in anp^a pso «?a nwcan is
V><1 nnin ,31n^iis rr^y Tyn» loa iini« aonD^on nonsnn mwn n«n
fnre nan mai ^sb ,SHB naono nia«i VI<| nny ,

, ^

Ar. ]«i nn?Kj>B« rrni

Dnp«S2« "l«D& «iTB ]WpW «Ofi Dnmw "when they saw that by associating
with them and witnessing their deeds they might become perverted, and
that by having social intercourse with them they feared their morals might 20
become corrupt". 2 Br So or6. s Ma > jn; 108153 for 1DK&3.

* So > train. » Mi nanm * Mss. edd. + nnan . . . aww. • So
o^oan. I. T. > Ar. 7«^« = r6«n. 8 I. T. > Ar. KiVs;ii = i^nnm.

» So row nro» Ma naie. 10 Ma + nan. » Ma own b«. «2 Ma
So rram » na«^ = Ar. ns«!?ni na«^n "its perdition and destruction". 25

i* Br So vi. » Ma DM '3. 16 So nwenn. " Edd. D'MBnnfi. « Br >
»» So D^Mipin DSOD. so Br biBin on» So Ma town onw.

Ma n-norpibip So «r«wip^p. « Ma M^fipom So nM^«Bp»Mi. ™ Ma
»* Ma la^M Min» lasm. 2» M. mentions three purgatives,

Dn» "juice of the colocynth, scammony, and aloe". 30
He mentions colocynth and scammony in a letter; see Ker. Hem., Ill,
p. 16. Of. Mittot ha-ffiggayon, C. VIII (ed. Slucki, p. 41):
\Vfth M^lfip»Mn. See Ro., p. 88, n. 3; "Wo., p. 23, n. 1. 26 n

mifii "a complete relief" = Ar. KD^'ay «S«^3 "by a wonderful salvation".
27 Br D'Vinn D'KB"i&. 28 p» !?3 "so much the more" = Ar. -njM^Mi nnK^Mas 35
quanta magis. J9 n^rr «w» . . . ^nnm "and if ... then". so Mi

Ar. «nBi«». Ma rn\ ** Ma vtn.

23 npi

Kbi Ynv Kbi iamby iip^i nian^n mbiys

nerv

Kb baK ,4ani}&>bi nib'sn nibiyB 3nwyb miss IIBD 2inKiit?a pi
Kin 7ai&n t?nnn «rm ,"iitsn byis *iniia»a man a^ys nib"on byis man
5 invi bp inr ma-nab nitfin p ami «awt? Kim ,miai nKiBin
-inn rwonn ntmn viya aw pi ,i
by ^isai nt^i ,nno nuKnn tya awo
na>jnnn "nya by ^iBai^» nnv nKini
"HBB "inv ^miaab iDsy nTD» aa^n "p by a^mi ,niKnn

nKiBi ma int , nbaia aie ab jm ib »w ^B ^iiaanD 18inv aabn

tvnan nnon

j«on TIT by nann IK wn nsb eye BstDia w IK ,nwa nysioan
15 rwivi myn nsb niTntn )a a^ii ww ba>a TTI '
ai»»i ,»y» 24maaaa icsy nTao isb nniain
pi oyo nnn mbsty isb niiyn |oi aya aabn ai&

Di ana a^iK nspi "a^etn nspa an^ann 26om« wy
20 "wa nb^K nnim ^onib^ba aipi ,29auo 2sinKn nspn IHK niwo p

nte nan wy Kb nnaifca nnianm

uni_n— a icsj tjiit/ its i t/j jj uj iu iui t/jn — <

» Mi rrby. I. T. > Ar. MOOT = Ttsn. 2 Br Ma ntnaiw. 3 Ma by.

25 4 So nrtt»fo. s Ma > noi; wiawa for imiBO. 6 Ma m. 7 umnn
31tn = Ar. HroJ^K. Lane, "a nice, subtile saying"; Wo. eine feine Be-
merkung, eine Subtilitat. BTnn, "a novel interpretation or idea". "The Win
= novelty, was some new thought on religious topics, or some ingenious
explanation of a Biblical difficulty", Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle

30 Ages, p. 132, n. 5. 8 Ar. yilNp = icdvw, Dozy, regie, reglement. 9 Br
So y\mt tnni Ma aittrwa rm. 10 So + 21^. i» Ma np. 1J So
mwnn. ts Ma > n6w&. >* So naso^. i» Ma > neo inv.

»« Ma iDia !?» ymi. " Mi niaaon ntsa. »« Ma > inv. >« Mi
y». »o Ma niwsja. »i Mi niian. 22 Ma m'Btfl. 23 Ma

35 p pi nwann niwi'in. 2* Ma nysob DBS» So niasoa I»BI Mi nasoa wsa.

25 So + n»r»a. 26 Ma ww. 27 So -f- niBipen nvpi. " Br So
innn. 29 Ma So DIM. 3» Ma nWa Dipai. So -f ">»« «nn rnirr)

IWK nwj>? n^T. " Ma > nwrnyi. Ma ]wm So ps. 3Z So 1121301.

« So > 13131W 1B3. s« Ar. n8DB^«1 "and the corruption of. 35 Ma D».

pis D'pns nai»» 22

p a: •DEW niyan p pan m tyi ,»mn KT iwto inn «vw
nn

jrn 5
m^ytn ^IB
nnn niyen vn D«I

am
iT «im /MMWI piss "inaity 102 ,]non ^>yi «^ ,n^D ^n iriy

,16isn« ^i«i vanp "inao SSD iniiBpD ni^vs p£5D 161 10
IBS ^snnana w "niTnia vrw WB«I ,WJ»IBB ann
2°"p-n

^B^^ p ia^T p^Di zsnwn^ai ,w»n •?«

p ,nv» ^ inrBjr^ nB 2*i^ nwj6 15

jnn niyBB in»r *w« visni »Bin nvn^nso nwnB mi

wi «^» ,^inn m ni«Bi^ -' mnayai ^pifin nn
nwn jwi»n nma ainn v^>y 29i2aty se «B^» 28s»
^B^I ,ays SO^K Dj?«5 I»B^ in«^itr ^ns fci» ,vbn» in«nns 20
,m^D^> ns^non m»nn WBAB iiaw ny n
32rn^ys IIBB p^ai mi ^iiitsn naian

« Br So rwu. > Mi -nts». 3 Ma > aaVn 3i» p-vn. * Ma

marg. -p^j mM for m^. s g0 w3^. « Ma > 0^3. ' AT.

9& •

ma = ntn man to. • So -J- «^>. » Br »BJ^. »o So 25
11 Ma + ma. So ^Jim Mi ^iiDl corrected to ^iini. »2 Ma
Mi -j- ono. '3 Mi > iri. So + one. Mi mwg- rion w»i vn D«I n^jfi
nn». »* Ma + n^nna. « Br manaa. i» Ma nnp. isn» s»aw
= Ar. in^ai. Mi ran vwaw, but corrected. » Mi rovnns. »s Mi

nnoinfi. i» Ma i«m. " So 7113. 2» Ma «s>i. » -nwai 30

naas = Ar. ntaKpas. 13 Ma nan^wsi So nwer»3i. " ih nwsb ai»a^
= Ar. nn^a«pa sto «a»a*"rt "and we have recourse to its opposite". J5 Ma
rwn. as Mi nom. v i»sa ia inn^ = Ar. nosa *hy «na nnp* "be-

cause of which he gives bare sustenance to his soul". 28 Mi 103.

" Ma •oa'ff. so Br nnK. 3t Thus Ma, paraphrasing the Ar. 35

NruiKp11 w I«n3«b« n«M nV ^$nn ^« n»3l "until he almost assumes the
disposition of prodigality or approaches it". 31 n^1J>B . . . <W =» Ar.

n:» ps-ia raw. Br So nfcwea IT bo11 mi Ma w^wane p^no' »KI Mi

IT

21 n pis D^

nsn IVKP ^a Kim ni n&n Kin baan ,^se«n Kim ]vn IK pu m
nspn Kim ,p»a K^I rni& K!?I jnon ia 2v«» naa ib'BK nana DIK '

DK I^BKI ,aita a^a nnawn d'nain mnyv Kin aa^n 2113 pirn ,pnnKn

nspn 'Kini ,nan& 6noan IK an mio IK 5jm IK bni p»a
5 jraiaa sa^B n»m ,nm nnn nty^nn myni oyan p

Kin D^B wy\ trxra an
pi ,16p

10 nirepn 2onn« i2tynsi /snivsn 12 m« »s^a i^ D^J?B mini

nspn latyn-1 zinnspc ,»Bin ni^VDo ntyai nib
onoion i«npsi ,n^»v» niiao^ mean
'i men n«

is «vw 27u>Bin runs by ino«si aie «vw frown nspn

i Mi > stt. 2 Mi + 1^. 3 Mi

* Ma ona. » Ma > ]ina. B Mi

7 Mi Kint. s See p. 20 n. 2. 9 Mi ntfiani. »o Mi -f- "h.

20 11 Mi D^K Kin itsnatf. " Mi DifiKDD. » Br ^•'lan Mi

14 Mi ]Br«ian. is Mi > pj> p!?. 16 The gloss p n^nmo nt^i
is not found in Ma. The use of the first person in the last phrase seems
to show, however, that it originated with I. T. i7 mana ... pi = Ar.
nfcmn -OKKjns ^>K naKa KIK nSns Kn^» n»iiio KDDK ^K JKnnn K^I «n^«o i^iai

25 HfiinBts. Cod 327 (Parma) has the correct reading. The word K^, necessary
according to Ar. and the sense of passage, is missing in all Mss., more
than thirty of which were examined, except in cod. 327 (Parma). Ma codd.
71 269 1212 Harl. 5686 (Br. Mus.) have 1^K or n^K, cod. (Parma) 438
miti l!?K, which probably go back to an original K^. Rosin (Ethik, p. 81,

30 n. 4) properly suggests the reading K^. Br Mi codd. (Parma) 802 959
1246: (Mi vrw) v,Ttw nissona onb DTUIO mnB6 D^B hi hv irntw nnaniKtfpi
•ai D^CSBI (Mi niana) nain awaits D^"3»n. nisaon or noaona is found in Br Mi
codd. 46 802 959 1161 1246 1262 etc. Correct reading mana (Ar. rhr«) in
Ma Mi codd. 71 269 327 438 1212 Harl. 5686. is Mi »»B. i» Mi

35 nnon. 20 Mi IHK. 21 Ma So D-WBI. 22 nmcb . . . n^ana ==

Ar. n^Knis^K ^» DipbKi iinn^K nw •'B. 23 Ma > itssy . . . maao^. 2* Ar.
nDBJa. 25 Ma ^VW. 26 So + Vhv. 27 \y^n nins "coward" for Ar.
DBi^K yn&^K, but rather "the apathetic, or phlegmatic in spirit", as above,

h'jKn&^Ki = tiai nain wmn m»m. 23 Ma Vsr. 29 Ma ntwin

40

n pnB D'p-iB mi&» 20

narw p yjntjo mpsnonm ,nnn rotean mwn p nysiaa
IB jvwi ntean p

ia D'xm nai D\MJ> BHB^ T
baa *inxjn lao&ai ism DIN ^ab a'er6 iruua !?a» "a amp aits

nDN1B!?Nl Hj>N^N p "and wit is the mean between buffoonery and clownish- 5
ness", evidently going back to the Aristotelian mean e&rpsnre\la "wit, liveli-
ness", and the extremes /Jw/xoXox^a "buffoonery, ribaldry", and iypouda. "boor-
ishness, coarseness" (Eth. Nic. II. 7); Poc. Urbanitas inter scurrilitatem
et rusticitatem. See Ro., p. 80. n. 3. blD^D "loftiness, distinction" ; Prov.
IV. 8, n^D "esteem highly, prize her" (Toy); Yer. Bikkurim, I, 64aD^nai 10
px»a ho» WO; Kiddushin 78b, Bekorot 30b ps»3 !?1D^D D'ina D-'ima, "the
priests guarded their dignity11.

I. T.'s rendering of the Ar. "and dignity is the mean between haughti-
ness and loutishness" is not exact. A number of Mss. have an explanatory
gloss, not by I T., but neither is this in accord with the Ar. Br So Mi 15
codd. (Parma) 46 378 802 959 1161 1246 1262 + Kin ^tf>D (Mi "B1) "B
Mi u-w) WK (802 959 1262 1161 1246 Mi itna) iton naanDtf (1262 Kin *ti) v
1262 wwannn) nuwinn, (46 1262 + nwa) (Mi ira) 0^1212 bainia (46 1262,
iV ^iK-in ]t3 inv (46 1262 om. Mi m«n) DIN laarPBO «in (Mi niK»mnm 802
nm tr» Q-'iiin ^nte n^»o (46 nw» m«) on« rwmr «im n»iT ntaam 20
nain nwns. Harl. 5686 omits this gloss, but after roNBttnnn has

Br Mi codd. 46 802 959 1161 1246 1262 etc., have an additional virtue
man pi ninispm iin&pn p jraion nmni, and have also an explanatory
gloss: 802 1161 tnViB 1262 trs^ifi Br n^iD) n'^ia »6a pip^ no x>aun niaia Vn 25
Him lite ipi vrae nn'aab nw»ts «^»ai (Mi man) nan «^a «in» ••a Kim (959 tr6&iK
im mm (Mi wao) o^ats nrrna Ka'» iintspn nwa. rnVie is the old Spanish
mollidura, Lat. mollitudo "tenderness, softness". Some Mss. have the
additional virtue nmm, but not the gloss. Rosin (p. 31, n. 2, and p. 80,
n. 4) is of the opinion that I. T. translated here from an Arabic text 30
which differed from the Pococke text. He attributes the virtue JVUm,
which is not in the Pococke text, to I. T., but not the explanatory gloss.
Since, however, there are a number of reliable Mss. (among them Ma codd.
(Parma) 327 71 438 269) which do not contain this virtue, it may be concluded
that it was added to the I. T. version, and that I. T. did not have before 35
him a text varying from that of Pococke. See supra, Introduction, p. 23.

1 Mi nfcwm .. ni3J?m misplaced after ]lPKin mipn mt nailtt IDBn, p. 21, line 4.

2 According to Ar., aa^ 31B . . . a^ aitsi should come before nipBDOnm.
The virtue aS aiB is entirely missing from Br codd. (Parma) 46 1161 1246
1262. The gloss ]l»Kin . . . n^xn nno1? ]W ^BBI is found in all Mss. that 40
have aa"? aiD, as Ma Harl. 5686 (Brit. Mus.) codd. (Parma) 71 269 327 438
802 (on marg. by same hand) 959, also in So Mi from which it may be
concluded that it originated with I. T. 3 Mi nnoa. « Ma liOOl W5W1.
Mi

rmxp TO pa ayjnean awwi n^ynn on 2Dt|^en
nwan p «n£jmm ,jnan *;vawn ,nteoin «jno nn«n ,
,mon srnnKni rrvrv JHD nn«n ,mjn r.wan TO pa a
ma NTO nnvnn ia teem ,ann n^iysn la^nrp nton nwann
«\T niTntni ,»n«inn n»iin myn pi nwnn an
moo a^nn11 •»« BEM ^nittni
nspn «in nwnn an

jn arri»i ,)nn«n nspn «i

10 naiann «sm ^'Wiinn nyni ,mwn naonn «^ni ,m«nn an
:nnon "wwnea "wwne IJT ]iTnB» ,
HTDDH pa nysifi» iTiiaam ,n^Bn^ ni^an pa VSIDO nianin pi
pai rwiwnnn )^a ysi»o "^a^am ,aa^n 71 pai

i So nwBin ^n nmsna. Cf. Ro. p. 79, n. 1. » So n'lia. 3 i.
15 > Ar. twnsa = nn\ * Mi p. Ma + wn. * Ma ona

6 Edd. + nn»n. t pp "an acquired quality" = Ar. rebo "custom,

habit". s Ma edd. m»m. » Ma So ntonn »iin Br m«m

»o Edd. waitan for mi. Mi nuorn. " nvion , . . niTntni = Ar.

•TP^'D ii^B vi risatb» Kr\w nt!?n sn^« DBi^>« p n«\n!?«i nKT3b» 'TWBK p \T "and

20 abstinence belongs to the good deeds, and the psychic condition from which

abstinence necessarily flows is a moral virtue". Ma nno mbyfi KVT.

« So vxvi. 13 Ma nwinn. So t?m. " So TOTHB. »» Br

nvninBD Ma rWVlBtt. « Mss. and edd. depart from the Ar. from ^ID^Dni
p J»S1D» to rrom Dsi21t5 (see i»/ra, p. 21, line 9), each Ms. having one or

25 more glosses, only one or two of which originated with I. T. Edd. acces-
sible to editor (Wien 1798, Basel 1804, Dessau 1809, Groningen 1845, Lem-
berg 1876, see Introduction, pp. 31 — 32) except ed. Slucki, contain no glosses,
and omit the phrase ITDm D'Jmo . . . tt1B2r t6. Ma codd. (Parma) 71 261
269 327 438 1212, etc. mention only seven virtues (Ar. has eight) besides

30 nwnin, omitting the virtues toote and nm. Br codd. (Parma) 46 1161 1246
1262 omit ^ 21B1, but add. nmm. Mi codd. (Parma) 802 959 edd. have nine
virtues: ntrai ,ro^>2W ,& a«si ,mpBnonni ,nu»ni ,nnjm ^ID^D.TI ,mi3im ,

ai . . . tooteni = Ar. ooine
b*

a pit D-
p ,jna awato men -nna^ men BWBU

18

»rojnn p a win nwsan wsn 2nn TOK lamm iwv ar6 "ps
na WBT TON «iD«tea anw INBYI ,ma» ]w pa n^rr T»K ann

pisa »ITOW i»« »Bin nna

jpso *6a

"minn ana maw arwiwan nn«
S wn» V'i ;w T^K sa^ nn
nan a^aia DJW ^ •]« ,«as

am

nai

nn

anwa
naa

msoo
«im was mn^ 10
nann

is

Ma D»B3n. J So nrw. a Ma nwnn. * So nsN^oa. » Ar.
Ma . So maw. 6 Mi «anxi\ ' nbinn . . . omnN = Ar.

. . . omnK. » Ma
Br HOT. »' Ma ^ov. 20

13 Thus Ma

for

s Mi
10 Mi nmro |na

Ar.

DHBS1B. Br DDHH

oann

n11?? no« So 'ts« n»"n» new "Qta Mi n»« mwn v>y oann
iTto HP"n» no« -ima. Vocalized edd. na^a construed with D'
So n*yh. »s So nann. 16 Ma nan. « Mi > -pin
is Mi > IBP . . . ne«a. i» So > n^nn. »» So

nro. « Br >

edd.
' Ma

«in»

So + 25

p ,
i
an

15

vb

n»a IBT nivin nnon

nnp!?

rn«na *)U? BW 103 rn nwia
jna nt?ynt? *roaian rrp^n n^am «nnaian rrnnt?
niiaro nnaian rrnnt? wn ntom , niton sni^ysrn »nman »TBJI
"WB« ,niiUDn ntojHjm 10rojnn »T»n jna rwynv waian rrp^n
5 nifiin ^vw ICDI ,v^y "iipnn mwenn 12nD«^o i^m «jun-ni^"Q
no i48in»nB^ ,10 "wrwpwa «vw non ^nm^in nosn*? IDT
nanni onwn pmm ,

10

moai

HBB

i So ^ina. 2 Br So v ^, Ar. osaW iiDnpt*1?** ^>«p. 3 Br > iea

, , . "him; Ma er« I»«D = wv 102. « Mi warn B Mi naian. • So
inn. 7 now = Ar. njoon^M n«n^». » Ma nAwan i«. » Br

Mi Tnn. 10 nwin = Ar. rwcbin nn^K. " So nafim. »l Mi

20 n3«^tt3. »3 Br nrrrwjnn. 1* Ma > tow. 18 So and edd. «in» n»3
no «inw pwD tnrw nea^ pno mnw 10. >» Ma iKiro So nnwa Mi *pwa

Mi n»»rg. attempts to correct. " Ma ni«!?. « Ma ^3 D^na^.

i» Ma 1J?S. 20 Ar. a«nnb«l dn&bw ^Btt^K "mud, coal, and dust". 21 Ar
flS1BJ>b«; Br DVBPn; edd. Basel, Dessau, Groningen, Slucki, Lemberg have

25 variant D'EflBsn. See ed. Slucki, p. 6a, n. 36; and Mil. ha-Hig., ed.
Slucki, c. VIII, p. 41. « So > n«0. 23 Ar. Y1B6«1. Br So »in

m«ni. 24 Thus Br cod. 73 (see Ro., p. 30, n. 4, and p. 77, n. 8) =

Ar. ntCNiVN "aims, purposes, utmost limits". So nuVfinS Ma ni^Bn/i. Edd.
+ nun n^WB or nun. 25 Mi "a'*, edd. -f o'iBun. J6 Br > an».

30 So H- n^n -jsna mm. 27 Ma o-'nan. 28 So
b

a pis D'pns ruie» 16

t nra *om w 6«n non «m nn m

n 'p^rn ^«

5

nn ]sw ,«T»V neTo «m w woi ^osi w 12i«y a IK
nn 16i"ot lysity no m

Ma nn\ Br en ntn\ » m»m = Ar. n^n^tn = nii^ao, in c. IV.

Ar. «i«w^»n = nu», in c. IV. 3 Ma nvvwn. « Ma

So naunan. 5 I. T. adds nJ1fi«, and Poc. magnificentia. « 1^«3 ion!? 10
= Ar. rnn ^ ensrtK. Br So iV«D. ' Ma p^n. s Ma So io«\

9 Ma So nto& «^. 10 im1' ^j> ]» wnw = Ar. neNpnoK by n«a na«. « Ma
-i^s So "i^u BTH. n So ite». »» nw ^ none «in i« = Ar. IN

nONpflDN ^9 n«j in "or it (the imagination) is in good condition". Ar. in
refers to an antecedent rp!?5n "his imagination", and is not "he" as Poc. 15
translates. Of. Wo. p., 12, n. 2. » So > 1^3. is Ma

IB So rato.

16 a pis D'pis

mna nNt?a p ;w no 2?wn nya wy ^iBiom jm Vi ,intan
DJ nan ma

njn nno« w a njn
,nno way

,nre&ni niYayn WJMD* 7nnn
rsnvte» n^yrn nnan ni^yo ,DTD w nn
p^r6 wsos on

nyf nn« "nnnpni nipvnn nnon njpr «sni noann
10

mno "wan nann i^V? wni niann aw »ruiann mat

: "OTjaatp w i*?« isn nan nr »8nvnsnBi ,17anp
nta tysi"i»n p'rnm ,na^> "iniynttn p^»n^> IKSD^ nnon
15 2oniTnta ,n«e man p^nn nt n^j»i ,"niv«on pbrb &®& pn ^SN pyn

reads K&mDp1 bezwingen, but in the later one (p. 9, n. 2), on evidence of
Berlin Codex, reads as does Poc.'s corrected text. Scheyer (ibid., p. 103,
note) suggests M&mttp1 leiten, and Rosin (p. 54, n. 4) Dyrurft lenken, instead
of DBJfloX but both revisions are untenable and unnecessary. Instead of

20 leiten (Scheyer, p. 103, line 1) and lenken (Ho., p. 54, line 15) it would be
well to read beschranken, or its equivalent. Wolff (p. 9, n. 2) finds fault with
I. T.'s translation DttPDb, but without ground. 'Vj? ixp=£o shorten, curtail,
restrict or confine a thing to, which idea is expressed in DBJflo!?.

i Br > n^«n. 2 So -f- nn^> mrrp&n r6wan. 3 Ar. HTTI "perplexity,

25 confusion, uncertainty". Cf. Ar. title of the Moreh VVKn^N rft«!n. 4 Ma

> ]3 DX 5 Ar. rrnt *x-\ n«pn»« IK no«s ••xn nNpnv« anna "in so far as one
believes a false or a true article of faith (dogma)". See Kaufmann to
Ouzari, I, 13 (>>^3 >l£X&\ V^); Holzer, Einleitung zu Chelek, p. 24, n. 5
(nxnxpTOK'jN \0 !?1S« ^ = nuiD«n ]D D-'lppa, Prinzipien der Dogmeri).

30 « Ar. may \s nista bsy DD« == map i« mso mt?j> D», Scheyer, ife^d., p. 103,
note; Eo., p. 56, n. 1. Mss. and edd. > Hit??. I. T. did not translate *7bV.
^ So nb>«n. 8 So nr^3»n. 9 So nin^ns Ma nrn^ns. 10 Br So

mb»D. 11 Br Ma mpnini nmpn. 12 Ma U&B batsn. 13 Ar.

Nri ^srr. Br 133 N5MS3n. »* Ma > »3B3. is Late Talmud edd.

35 njisnn mat. In c. VIII, the opposite is niunn pnni naann BI»S»I. " «ini

wan^l = Ar. *vhx hv Din finw Kim. ^jA* t/*-*^- deviner, decouvrir

par voie de conjecture, Dozy. "Qin !?J? nittj?^ "to understand a thing"; cf.
Y. Shekalim, I, 45 d '21 to 'S1K !?» llti^ 'jlD'1 nns ]W "you cannot understand
the nature of" etc. " Ar. «nii ynp = nx» anp. is So

40 19 Ma D36n IK I^K ^ii^ nan nt So oasn IN I^>N -ma nt»on nan m. 20
Ma nwnn.

plan

mjnm nnwn nn&n

rose* DI»« nnuin nra&m nwayrw
to fir D'p^nn £« 3<ot!Oi ,1:6 "niynen p^nm Bunen ptoin Kim

nrae PK nenen ptoi
tor «^ ,5^D wye
n«nn «Sn ,'nn« n^iyso naye^ IK orwye hvnb 5

i Thus Br. = Ar. 'SN1>D '6 "concerning the disobediences of". Add. 27070
(Brit. Mus.) mm Br. n»Mg. Add. 27070 marg- Ma So Mi edd. T»3.
"Wolff (AZDJ, 1902, p. 576) suggested that by changing the Ar. <SMMi to
S3K»B it would agree with the Hebrew ^JJD. This suggestion he himself,
however, gave up, since he found the reading 'XNJH3 in the Berlin Codex. 10
see Wo., p. 9, n. 1. As Wolff points out, SS«J>B fits the context, since the
chapter deals with transgressions. Rosin (Ethik, p. 54, n. 2), with Scheyer
(Das psychol. Syst. d. Maim.., p. 102, note), on the basis of the Ar., offers
rvnaw instead of ^vao. The reading wnM is to be preferred, however, as it
has Ms. substantiation. I. T. translated ^KVD now by TPQS and now by '10. 15
See chap. VIII (Wo. p. 31, line 22) rPSSB^M Hwt&ta 10K ]b = nwon ]s3yB
nnajn, and (Wo. p. 31, line 24) frcy&taa mp nW» )« = noa nitJ11 n»nt?,
Rosin (ibid.) is of the opinion that the word njJHW has fallen out of the
Ar. text after <XK«a 'B, and suggests that the title should read: WOP3
'31 »B3ii nina^ 1»« nilSOl. Scheyer (ibid., p. 102*) suggests as the title ttTOSS 20
mn"nsni rtbv&n iHse11 n!?nn n n»« p^»nn WTM »san mns. If a part of the
title has been lost, this happened before I. T. translated. * I. T. > Ar.
«bl« = r6nn (see preceding note, end), which Mss. and edd. omit. Ma has 1^ IK
after 13, but this is probably a variant of 12. 3 Mi ^BO. 4 Ar. NDiTB
= DiTMW. 5 Br Ma b!?3 . . . . ^KW = Ar. KOiT'B IKVON^KI *VCbh D^ n« 25

nan has. Ma in«^. So bhs n»x«3 «bi nn-'iWD (Mi int6) into HTWI TOT ]s«».
s Ma imjn. 7 Mss. and edd. nn« n^WBfi DBj>Dl? = Ar. «o ^>»a ^s> KBmxp',
Poc. «»n^SB ^» S0nn«p<1, but in the Errata corrects to the proper reading
of which Rosin and Wolff were unaware. In his first edition (1863), Wolff

13 « pna D'piB

SN T»B« OKI >6 DK ainwj^ IPSK DM

5 ,

10

HST TON njn
:n»jw 7"B
no TIJPBP m

na

rrnn

«*

^»v
nra

nt

ITTttQ

» So > vwj^ I-WT n»« n»a. 2 Ma > inw»^> wan DK.
V« 1W»j?^. Ma DM for T-M. * Ar. W ]K Ma npiW,

« Ma So .Tp^ni. ' Br So jmn. 8 Br ViT. Br So +
15 n«npnD«^K "readiness, ability, aptitude". 10 Ma 10K.

12 Ma mwn. 13 Ma m«g. aie »h . . . Vn.

Ar. ^pj>S«i. Br te»n TOi. Ma nisrp. So nwnni

s So I^BH

Ma > nnMH.

. « Ar.

»« Ma So

>« Br

edd.

See Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, pp. 444, n. 126, and 446, n. 129.
Scheyer (Psychol. Syst. d. Maim., p. 66*) suggests D^aiwn or
20 »« I. T. > Ar. Ti ^Dl, Wo. ttwd wie sie beschaffen sind. " Br

is Mi im nsna». w Ma marg. «i,-n. 2° Ma > vn\

« pIB D'plB nJ10» 12

way aw nan ^TW iyT Nbi ,^B« nena b ^ ,a,wn^ D-IK *aa

j lanart? iaa ,yaaa WIIK*BP

IK 3nn« "ir6 m«n appiw ia -IPK nan Kin vnynan pVnni
,5iaaa nnnani wn n^pa *nitoyfin p KW nan ntai ,IHDKB'
,miaam nnsni ,pnm oyani ,iaaa .'pmnni nn« nan snvnai s
,D*Btean anpan i^«a nanni ,n«itrm nanKm ^niaennni nnoKm
^owy^aa ^i nann nrrp1? ^ Tn naa ,9«)ian na'K to nman ^K ^ai
IK "naann^ abn nai ,m«nn ty )svn nai ,na^nn ^y ^ann nai
n6 o^a "DiTninai on onnoam n^Kian *)ian na^K n«{y pi ,»KT^

tTnynen nan 10

,»^a^ n i»K m«^ Ks»an nan Ki
p n«am naiaen p ^na^ iai ,meann

/avy pai /»ya "pa ni^iysn
yr ia ntyK Kin wyni /a»na iaaai

f«ify p» na ^y 15
ona^ ia *MK nan Kin
nan Kin

i Ma m ^3. 2 Ma n pin»\ So «\1D3M ppvw u. 3 Ma Mi nnt«.

Ar. «B n»V "to something". * Ar. ^»«PB«b« p TW nipb« rnn pi "from

this faculty result the (following) actions". Br 1«"2\ So ^>« for p. Mi 20
s 1100 . . n»pa = Ar. nn^Ki 2bbV«. « So nn^-ai Mi mar«-

' Br pnirn i«. » Ma maonii. » «)wn . . . ^31 = Ar.

KSJ>K SJ^Oi *1p^8 rnn ril^NI "and the instruments of these faculties are
all the limbs of the body". Br *yiin *13'M (a superlinear) ^33 WrOH 1^8 ^31
So »jun Hi3« bs nsn nt ^31; Ma *pan ^2« ^3 nsn mnsn I^»K nt ^31 combines 25
the two readings. Wo., p. 90, note to line 5 from bottom, emends Ar. Mpbtf
to sing. nip^W, but Br and Ma point to the pluraL Wo.'s emended reading
agrees with So. The word niro "powers" is used here by M. possibly
instead of m^1J>D "actions", the meaning he wishes to convey being that
the limbs of the whole body are the instruments of the actions of the 30
psychic qualities just mentioned.

»o Ma So 13T for I3in. TTO\IJ . . by = Ar. »&3^H rfhy. ll Ma Mirk.

12 So in&n ran rvrab. ^ Mi m»rs- + obis edd. D'-Vs 0^3.

i* Ma So H31, »» Ma So W^n»nn, »s ^no partitive, "some".

17 ruffno n3K^»o= Ar.^no. 35

«« vto ]n» no to = Ar. •T'to --n no '•to "as they really are". Cf. HUb.,
p. 421. Br. ȣ>3 for to.

19 Ar. pt6tDK3 "general or absolute acceptance of a word". Jo Ar.

"inp-1 pass. So no^ Ma m«n TID!?\ 21 Ma > nnjis. 22 Br mon^oni.
" So new 1313 m«n tonar 13 n»« nan Kin. 40

11

K pis D'piB

nni T&n

anc HOT 2n*na inn nfca
nt arep

nra

5 ,9nunn ,s)i»nn w mooiiBen rwonn 'ronan wao t^an&n
Vaa

i aien

nnsp te onsp

10

2 7

15

nonai ,
nan

naiaon
ant? ,

nt

nami

nmp
«
6
711

i Better, WV nt»1 = Ar.
"by what means they work".
nn» K^tti. * Ma one noi
20 Ar. ac^N nr«3sV. Br nunsnn

K021, not "what" the faculties do, but
2 So rbto inn n«13 ini\ 3 So Hftl

ono noi. s Br im^. s Thus Ma.
So n«isin ns«!?JD3. ' Ma mm.

s Ar. iirmi^K nas nnntws^K. n«ninisn3^« = ra Mo^a = mooiiBtsn. See Millot
ha-Higgayon, c. VIII; Munk. Guide, I, p. 39, n. 1; Scheyer, Das Psychol.
Syst. d. Maim., pp. 22—23. So D'fiDn&on. 9 So rttnn on. 10 Ma

antWDni. " Br ntna.
25 12 Ma + D»i2 n»a ro^a ^33 wa !?sa IK via^e inxa waaa top'

originally a marginal gloss. « Mi mnsn. Ma + niKin DH»

oytsni vawnv i* Mi nnnDn. » Mi > nsn. « Ma isrn.

Ar. nNDIDHD^K moi "trace, impression". is Ar. Knwa "their absence".

30 is Dnjnnn . . . ii3P i»« misplaced in So after DTyyn ]» nsn nt 3'3T mbi.
20 Ma 3"31TI1 Da'»n. Ar. 33ina "to combine, to compose".
Ji Ma TlBni. The fern, forms of the verbs probably go back to I. T.
to agree with Ar. But see Introduction, p. 26.

22 Ma n'avton p. 23 Ma Dr»n. 2* Mi w» D». J5 Br

35 omT «V» So Da"»« «^. 26 Thus Br; Ar. <iin. So ynn Ma tswn

"float". 27 Ar. ^y (sing.); So D'». 2^ Ar. nKWnDtt^N "impossibilities".

2« Ar. miiril "invent". so Ar. ]lt^3nt&K "the Mutakattimun" . 31 So

nwe. 32 Ma nauon ^nan. 33 So wsni. Poc. ioni« i« iai; Wo.

(p. 90, note to p. 3. line 17, not 7) unnecessarily emends to Nlfimtfl NUB.

40 Ar. Dm IV "to make anyone form an opinion about" (3Wflb «'3n). Of. Fried-

laender, Sprachgebrauch, sub voce.

pis nyis

pi ,
DT*O T
twnnn «in 'an nn

nt

]tn

nt
ntwin ^is p

m

:p
nts
15rnt

ana

nt pm ,

nnnm ,

n»

10

10

15

i AT. DDi6N *]K=iTO8S "homonym". On ^^i, see Munk, GrwitZe, I, pp. 133,
n. 3; 239, n. 1; 262, n. 3, and Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, pp. 460, n. 148, 20
and 461, n. 149. 2 So DM'OJNP t6l; some edd. -f- 0^123. y», here like

Ar. '»e "meaning". 3 n^n b»21 "animal" = Ar. J«w6«1. So 1«W1

n^n ^w Ma n^nn toai. * So n^iinn «\n m«n f»n n»« n»jinn nHnn» t6.
5 o^n ^w n«»a = Ar. ]«vn*?« "B. Br So ^M. 6 So nwnnn. 7 Ar.
S>1i^>« "class, species, kind". 8 nn« WBi 1^> W "has a soul peculiar 25

to itself". 9 in«n t?ai ^nte == Ar. n5Nb« osa TJ. 10 So n^s.

11 So aww. 12 Ma D» on». " Ma > ono. »« So mt.

« Ar. vhti. Br nT«n Ma T«n. i« Ar. nsK^to = nn«ni. " Ar.

iiHiD ,TB inc. is Ma rum. i» So rmonn. >o So Ma win.

2» Codd. 71 1161 -iDnn. See swpra, p. 9 n. 9. ** Cod. 71 nntwin cod. 30

1161 lenn. » So mJ. 24 Ar. HTW& "which is common to them".

2 s So ^n»a. 26 Ma ^3. 27 Br. n3. 28 So + m« 133.

29 Ma n^SD^Bnttno edd. D^Bioi^BnD. Ar. •pBD^Bne^N \o "of the philo-
sophists"; Wo., p. 4, n. 1, Philosophanten. D^BD^BDD coined by I. T., based
on Ar. tp^BflD, see HUb, p. 419. 35

so Ma WWM. si Ar. n«»«a» "absurdities". 32 So nviDSi for ^3
niTPttK. 33 So Ma Tiais. 34 Some edd. ns. 35 So nans.

36 Ar. B«^>3« = r\\rb, |NDJK!?« is«^5« "the humours of the body". 37 Thus
Br. Ar. h\vr\ T\n. So edd. w\w Ma BT'iBnw. 38 Ma + Kin.

pis D'pna

ro ^ ,m«n &&>in pn

]?n p^ni pw cn^n '3 ,7Diom ••nenn u pw pnsn sro
,mi»nn pen p )tn pte pw nianni ,rwij«
pw ^an ty new DJDKI ,r6 T»« pesn p jm ptoo pw

5 i Thus Br So Ma = Ar. in KfcJN; edd. Dm See Introduction, p. 25
(bottom). » Ar. nnit6« = tnruN^K. 3 (Ma DIK) m«n 12 jin* =

Ar. jKDitM H^M. * So > ^»» TIT hv. » So nas. e menn ia |n<»
= Ar. -many? *i^«. 7 So -nonrn Dion. « So + iV IBM. » Ma

marg. (i»ter hand) Cod. 71 (Parma) iiwvtt = Ar. nS5lb«l. Br So Mi Ma codd.
10 (Parma) 46 261 378 438 802 959 1246 1262 edd. 1»Jm "and the eagle". Ma
may have been corrected by comparison with some other Heb. text, but
hardly with the Arabic. Cod. 1161, which will be referred to below, is
defective here. Since a palm is nourished by a nutritive faculty (]tn pVn),
it was proper for M. to use H^M^W. Later, (p. 10, lines 10 — 12) in speaking of

15 the faculty of sensation (nBOin b»B) of the various species, M. refers to that
of the eagle (Ar. 2SpJ^K). All Heb. Mss. and texts, except codd. 71 and
1161, have correctly ntwn. Codd. 71 and 1161 read itsnn. Thus, in describ-
ing the nutritive faculty of the different species, the Ar. refers to that of
man, the ass, and the palm, while in discussing the faculty of sensation

20 it speaks of man, the ass, and the eagle. Ma with its marginal reading,
alone, agrees with the Ar. The texts which read ~\V17V\ in the first instance
have itwn in the second, while cod. 71 has nann in both cases. This con-
sistency in the Heb. texts is suspicious. The Ar., cod. 71, and Ma m»rg-,
no doubt retain correctly the first list of species, namely, man, ass, and

25 the palm, and it can safely be said that I. T. translated accordingly.
The present condition of the Heb. texts arose, perhaps, from a mis-
understanding of the original I. T. version. Some copyist, thinking prob-
ably that the same word should be used in both places, must have changed
iDnm to agree with the later occurring IBttn. Another copyist, thinking

30 that IBttn in the second instance was an error, changed this to IBnn (codd.
71, 1161). That M. need not have used the same list of species in both
instances is apparent from the context. First of all, he speaks of each
species as having a nutritive faculty (]tn D3) peculiar to itself, and states
that this faculty of man differs from that of the ass and the horse, the

35 two latter representing one species. Then, discussing the nutritive faculty,
he illustrates from human, animal, and plant life, saying that the nutritive
faculty which nourishes man differs from that which nourishes the ass,
and both from that which nourishes the palm. Later, however, no longer
speaking of the nutritive faculty but of the faculty of sensation, M. very

40 properly avoids referring to the palm as being endowed with such a faculty.
Instead he uses the eagle (3«pJ>b«) as an illustration. Thus, M. may well
have used two different illustrations, one from plant life, and the other
from animal life.

pawn

jn

5 mm nwfii 4m*6 »s» nt TOJD aatfrn ,JWBJ nnn n^iyan mp
nrrns

nn

nn ^2« ,niswn p^nna np^»nn» jorw ^b
onn "D^pnno lainon ^ IOD^^HD tysin »^^ taw

12nnan i^n^ ^v nnsi

'n ,nn na i«rpm i 10
p ,on

nsnm

nnw

nn 23B>sn '•p^n^ IOIK nr ^SDI
nn ^uoin *mi a»m "niynom n»i»ni »^iem 15

» So > »B3. » Thus Br Ma Mi = Ar. 'Bon, with phrase JYl^»Bn mp

Dnn as subject. So and edd. DlJOp^ ; cf. "Wo., p. 1. no. 1. 3 So and edd.
awm. « Ma + i1?. s Br nm. 6 IIBD . . . IP = Ar. ins^ ••nn

DnD«l. For clearness, I. T. has D^KBlin »«n instead of Dtftn (Ar. DnD^I).
' See Munk, 'Melanges, p. 40, n. 3; p. 54, n. 2. 8 Ar. NnbtMmD11 "make 20

use of, employ". For n»J> in this sense, see I Sam., VIII. 16,
"and he made use (of them) for his work". » So ^D. 10 So

n^m. »i So Ma D'-pbno. »a nnan yipTi = Ar.

is So Ma ton. »* Ma KSnn. « Ma on marg. " Ar.

= «jiin ^ni. '7 So TUMP. « Ma > onm in^rv. nfi^i (some 25

edd. llfien) pass. = Ar. SiniriB "so that they should be averted". t9 Ar.
DB3^« 3B11 '•'ib« ^^^5 "likewise he who cures the soul". 2° So edd. nnD

onxn. 2> So rrmnsi. 22 Br nbb. » So »BJ. J1 Ma on

pun n»en. « So noisn «ini. See Introduction, p. 26. J5 So uiKi

30

n«

10

5 npi ,ITB
naan K^ DSI

rto

,mpn p

n^» jsi

inn •}«

DD«
.TSI ,D

rn

nan

m

ISDO
,yn nt

Kinn

nm

mn

15

Ma

So M3W^a nttWI. 2 So + ^fi». 3 So «)"»«» Ma

* Ma WS^K, but corrected by later (?) hand. & Ma 13 y*

rby\n. 6 Br n\T». 7 Br So + pnat. s So pn ib Ma ^n.

» So vn. 10 Br Ma ^&fc. " Ma DnWMn DW. « Ar. "since it

is my intention that profit should be realized for the reader." Br Ma
20 N-npn Hv6 vuw» So «iip^> n^inn ne!?!? viiow. «3Br So
Mi

rnsTpn
jraa

ye

*wia toaa ^K rnia
iron i^fa ,,Tp'pn
ipi ,

name

TO , maite Ti niTDnte pis

nrron itep

p ns nps ,enpn nn

•rin

ta

Taa

p

TIX^ «D -si ,?is£5« n-n SB
«nmana« y«ii« in D^ mob* p

p
«

pi ,)s

pa

p

mi

p

2na 5

nrrona
nwaan
"i«ann nan ,enipn nn ^ n^aa 10

nann
p"?n 14

t^nnana 15

mip a^

na^n na^n

Bna
p

nana Q^ntDp D^ap an
f anniana 2'wbw iio^nni niamaa 25

p aa B^BiD^sn
nain anianai ,
saa na«n

i Br So Wbtob. 2 So ma. » So Ma h"r\ « Ma 'iribV. 30

s So 'bba p>^. s Ma + "inv. 7 Ma D« '3. » So + V'n. 9 Ma

So dvpa». 10 So nb«b. n So Kan. 12 Ma innbK. 13 So

i* Br So > hy. i» So + nwen. i« Br So > ns^n.

So ifiTi. is So nnBbi «a». 19 Ma IDS. 20 Ma i«a^. 21 Br i»«

Ma 4- ^V So IDI« i»«. 22 Ma + ona. 23 So "ma» nnai. 35

Mi D"b3n. 27 So nnbw. 28 Ar. onp^K. 29 Ma »a. 20 Ma

-TO

narp jnN j *ib* ssob* «»
,VID^K Kin * «nDDD^« nnn
•Tina riyBai^K tt&
5 «o -"B rttna Krrjn npi
Djom tufcta *ptonto *nn p mpn
,H*TBB ^>«"ii« *B Brooch rrin *

10

nt

iii«a nan

na

p oa won ,*non nta «roofin
n^yinn nn
noa

mp na

no

1 Since the Arabic of M.'s foreword is inaccessible, being found only
in the Mss. and in Pococke's Porta Mosis, the editor has deemed it
advisable to reproduce it here. The text is that of the Porta Mosis, pp. 181
— 183. The Hebrew is found in the editions of the Peralcim by Hurwitz,
15 and Slucki, and a Latin translation in Suhrenhusius' Mishnah, Pt. IV,
p. 393; see supra, Introduction, pp. 31, 33.

» Thus Ma. Br V't p«& "i sin p WD i3"3i hnm ain ne« So Tin ION

V'2» lanen. Of. the introductory phrase of M.'s Introduction to the Moreh:

»"j mirr Ta f'v «IDV "i aiwnn T'e^nn wvbrb nan»n ann ana. I. T. translated

20 the Perakim in 1202 (see supra, Introduction, p. 10) while M. was yet alive.

Therefore, in referring to M., he could not have used the abbreviation h"\

or *>"». See HUb., p. 438. |»"» = n« ^nnfitf "may his Rock protect him",

preterite for optative; see Munk, Guide, I, p. 3, n. 4; idem, Notice sur

Joseph ben-Jehouda, Paris, 1842, p. 69, n. 2. Fiirstenthal, Moreh I, p. 2

25 has, incorrectly, Gemeindevorsanger (=Tias rfhv).

» Ma r6nro, nnviB = Ar. "ns "introduction, prolegomenon". M. uses
this word to designate his introduction to the Moreh. See Munk, Guide, I,
p. 3, n. 1, and idem, Notice, p. 23, and 26.

« The man #or excellence is M.'s Mishneh Torah. Of. Munk, ifoU, p. 23,
30 and 28. B Br rby\r\ Ma n\hy\r\. « Ma > mann m& D^W noa. ' So
n-nai. 8 Ma n^>pi. » Ma Mi wwto. »° Br n^iai?; So n
a» na

mn

p

nn

p«

ay

p

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA

30112004374135